[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

Mr. Speaker: The House will have heard with deep sadness of the death on Saturday of Her Royal Highness the Princess Margaret. I have written to Her Majesty the Queen to convey the House's sense of sympathy and loss on this sad occasion. I now invite the House to rise and observe a minute's silence in memory of Her Royal Highness.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

EU Defence Capability

Mark Lazarowicz: If he will make a statement on progress towards the headline goal on European defence.

Julian Brazier: If he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU capability improvement conference of 19 to 20 November 2001.

Geoff Hoon: First, I should like to convey a message of sympathy from Her Majesty's armed forces to Her Majesty the Queen, the Queen Mother and other members of the royal family on the death of Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret. Her Royal Highness took a close interest in the armed forces and had links with a number of units from all three services. She launched, and continued to take a close interest in, HMS Illustrious and HMS Norfolk. She was Colonel-in-Chief of the Light Dragoons, the Royal Highland Fusiliers and Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps, and royal honorary Air Commodore of Royal Air Force Coningsby. She will be greatly missed.
	EU member states have identified 144 specific targets for improving military capabilities to meet the Helsinki headline goal. At last November's capabilities improvement conference, European nations revised and improved their earlier offers of military forces. As a result, we have now met 104 of the specific capability targets. Member states also agreed to continue working to improve their military capabilities. This work is now being pursued through the European capabilities action plan, which addresses the remaining 40 capability targets that have yet to be met.

Mark Lazarowicz: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that in the current international climate it is even more important to have a strong common European foreign policy, underpinned by strong common European defence structures? Does he agree, in particular, that in the light of President Bush's recent decision concerning $38 billion of additional defence expenditure, it is even more important to have effective co-operation on military spending among European countries?

Geoff Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we carry through the EU states' commitment to making capability improvements. Progress and effective co-ordination are needed to meet those commitments, not only by spending more money but by spending that money more wisely. Flexible and rapidly deployable troops are needed, whether for deployment by individual nations, by a NATO force or indeed by a European force. That is why identifying the shortfalls in Europe's military capabilities and addressing them on a collective basis mean that we will get more, collectively, for our defence spending.

Julian Brazier: May I associate myself and my hon. Friends with the Secretary of State's condolences on the loss of Princess Margaret?
	On a separate note, does the Secretary of State agree that the acid test of any European moves must be a real increase in capability rather than a growth in bureaucracy? When America has decided to give an extra $40 billion to its armed forces and security apparatus, is it not rather sad that so many of our European partners continue to cut their defence budgets, and even in this country the Secretary of State has explicitly acknowledged that the budget is simply too tight for the commitments arising?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right to the extent that the test of improvements must be improvements in military capability. That is why this Government have set so much store by the Helsinki headline goal process, and the test of its success will be whether it produces real improvements in military capabilities that can then be made available to NATO, to individual nations and to any collective European operation.

Nigel Beard: How do today's regiments of main battle tanks fit within the strategic concept that requires ease of transport, speed and flexibility?

Geoff Hoon: Each country, individually and as part of its contribution to international forces, requires a range of military capabilities. My hon. Friend mentions one of those capabilities. It does not necessarily fit with the sort of rapid deployment exercise that has recently been conducted, but it certainly fitted entirely with the sort of conflict in which this country, with others, engaged at the time of the Gulf war. What is important when considering our range of military capabilities is that we do not simply respond to the lessons of the last conflict; we need to recognise that there may be circumstances in which we are faced with a different sort of conflict, and that we will need appropriate military capabilities to deal with that.

Bernard Jenkin: The armed forces will be grateful to the Secretary of State for conveying their sympathy on the death of Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret.
	As the right hon. Gentleman calls on our EU partners to improve their defence capabilities, how is he really getting on at home? On the BBC's "On the Record" programme yesterday, he said, "We're certainly stretched" but insisted:
	"I would not actually use the word overstretch at the present time." Will he explain to our armed forces the precise difference?

Geoff Hoon: We are using available resources to their maximum capability. We are using them extremely effectively, as the armed forces' record demonstrates, and we shall continue to do so. However, I made it clear that if the United Kingdom entered into significant new commitments, that would have implications for our operations elsewhere. I have consistently set that out to the House and to the hon. Gentleman. If he believes that we are overstretched already, he must say from which of the various commitments into which the UK Government have entered we should withdraw.

Bernard Jenkin: It was this Government who, in the strategic defence review, forced through cuts to the Territorial Army, for example. Now we hear that they are to reverse those cuts. Will the Secretary of State try to deny that Labour got it wrong in the SDR?

Geoff Hoon: My recollection is that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the conclusions of the SDR and the way in which it set out Britain's military contribution to reflect our foreign policy commitments. He cannot have it both ways. He has to decide whether he believes that Britain should play its part in the world, and where, or whether we should have some curious defence and foreign policy that he has yet to articulate.
	As for the TA, there will be an opportunity for the House to debate that on Thursday. I have stated clearly that the events of 11 September have created new conditions in which we have to pay much greater regard to the defence of our homeland than was the case on10 September. That goes without saying.

Bernard Jenkin: But we were already doing more than the SDR set out before 11 September. When the right hon. Gentleman took over as Defence Secretary in 1999, he said that overstretch
	"essentially means asking our armed forces to do more than we originally contemplated at the time of the Strategic Defence Review."
	He continued:
	"we have . . . to get back to the levels of service that we anticipated at the time of the SDR."
	I put it to the Secretary of State that he has failed in that respect. With the Army undermanned, a chronic shortage of combat pilots, an overall outflow of trained personnel, training constantly sacrificed to maintain operations, and inadequate investment in forces' accommodation, is it not now time that he persuaded either the Foreign Secretary to reduce the number of military commitments, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the amount we spend on defence? He cannot go on having it both ways.

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman repeats the point he has already made, and I again challenge him to respond as I invited him to. If he believes that Britain's armed forces are involved in too many commitments around the world, he must articulate from which commitments he would withdraw.

John Smith: With the growing capability gap between the United States of America and Europe, which will almost certainly worsen given last week's budget announcements, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a big mistake for Europe just to develop a peacekeeping capability and not be able to maintain a high-intensity warfare capability?

Geoff Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend. The United Kingdom will be at the forefront of that ability. We will not abandon our very considerable high-intensity warfare assets, and we will continue to develop and sustain them. Equally, the size of the United States' military budget and defence spending and the range of equipment that it has available demonstrate the importance of acting collectively. It is vital that Europe contribute to international missions and that that means working together to provide some of the capabilities that the United States already has.

Crispin Blunt: The Secretary of State will of course have noticed that I am wearing the tie of the Light Dragoons. I thank him for and concur with his remarks on the Colonel-in-Chief of the Light Dragoons.
	Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the forthcoming disappearance of the multinational division from our allied rapid reaction corps indicates a serious lack of contribution by our European allies to the future defence of Europe through NATO?

Geoff Hoon: No, it does not. That decision is based not on any lack of commitment by our European partners, but on a sensible rationalisation of the arrangements that we have available to us in that international context.

A400M

Michael Jack: Which European Governments are fully committed to building theA400M.

Lewis Moonie: The commitment of the eight participating nations to the programme was demonstrated by the signature of the necessary intergovernmental agreements on 18 December 2001. However, those documents will not become effective until the German commitment has received Bundestag approval. As that approval process is not yet complete, partner nations are considering options for taking the programme forward, which include allowing Germany more time to secure its approvals.

Michael Jack: I thank the Minister for that answer. Those of us who have a keen interest in the aerospace industry in the north-west were concerned about announcements that Germany was considering in some way pulling out of the project, and that even our own Government were looking elsewhere. To that end, will the Minister assure the House today that the industrial launch of that project will take place on or around 31 March? Also, what steps will he be taking to ensure that all partners continue to honour their obligations to the project? As he will appreciate, it would be foolish to use moneys that could be allocated to buying aircraft to pay penalty clauses.

Lewis Moonie: That is a very good point. The programme is proceeding and we still expect it to be signed and delivered on time. Having said that, it is clear that it must await the approval of the Bundestag. We are working with our other partners in the scheme to ensure that.

Gordon Prentice: I understand that we are committed to taking seven of these planes by 2010 and the full complement of 25 by 2014, which is half a generation away. Is there no way that we can bring forward the date of procurement of this military version of the airbus—that is what we are talking about—to fill the gap in the north-west and elsewhere, where orders for commercial aeroplanes have nosedived?

Lewis Moonie: I am very well aware of the problems that we face, but one must be realistic. This is a major procurement project, and we have to be sure that we get it right. Much as I would like to bring the in-service date forward, I do not know that that would be achievable.

Patrick Mercer: The A400M clearly underpins the deployability of any European force or, indeed, any NATO force. Will the Minister comment on the fact that it now seems likely that the NATO deployment in Macedonia will end following the elections and that a Euro-led commitment will take its place? Which headquarters will lead that, which nation will lead that, and which part of Britain's overstretched forces are likely to be involved?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that his question is far too wide.

Pensions

Andrew MacKinlay: If he will make a statement on the impact of the pensions trough on former armed forces personnel; and what measures he proposes to remedy anomalies.

Lewis Moonie: I hope that I have better luck with this one.
	In the past, periods of public sector pay restraint, coupled with high inflation, have meant that public servants, including members of the armed forces, retiring at that time received pensions lower than the value of those in previous and subsequent years.
	It has been the policy of successive Governments not to make retrospective changes to public sector pensions to address such anomalies, as to do so would be prohibitively expensive. However, as part of the review of the armed forces pension scheme, the Ministry of Defence is giving consideration to introducing mechanisms that might prevent similar occurrences in future.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will the Minister forgive me for asking a disobliging question on a day when other aspects of armed forces' pensions are in the news? I hope that he will agree to meet me and the Forces Pension Society so that we can make him focus on a tremendous anomaly and unfairness. Two people can join the armed forces on the same day and achieve the same rank in the same time scale, but one can leave one week and get a higher pension than the other who stays on a little longer, sometimes at the request of the armed forces. We cannot put a high enough price on fairness; the arrangement is as demonstrably unfair as it is perverse, and I hope that the Minister will agree to my pinning him down on the table with the Forces Pension Society so that he can focus on that wrong that needs to be remedied.

Lewis Moonie: My hon. Friend is rarely disobliging. I am due to meet the officers of the Forces Pension Society in the next week or two.

Andrew MacKinlay: Not with me.

Lewis Moonie: Should another meeting be necessary,I am of course happy to meet the society along with my hon. Friend. Again, while the arrangement may well be perceived as unfair by those in receipt of smaller pensions than they might have had, I can only reiterate that the policy of successive Governments is that we cannot revisit the issue.

Paul Keetch: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the remarks of the Secretary of State about Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret?
	The Minister will recall his statement in the House on 23 January 2002 about Army invalid pensions, in which he said that perhaps £30 million needs to be repaid because of previous blunders. The following day, he wrote to me and other Members saying that that figure may have been too high. Today, we have heard that the blunder may have gone back not to 1952, but to 1919. Will the Minister tell us whether that is the case? How many people were involved in the blunder?

James Gray: The Liberal party should pay; send the bill to Cowley street.

Paul Keetch: Indeed, if the blunder was a result of action by the Liberal Government, when refunds are paid, will they come from the Treasury, not Ministry of Defence coffers? Finally, if there has been a blunder, the only way in which people will know that the pensions of their fathers and grandfathers were correct will be for a full independent inquiry to be conducted. Will the Minister initiate such an inquiry today?

Lewis Moonie: I suppose that this is the only opportunity that I shall have in my life to blame a Liberal Government for something.
	The hon. Gentleman would be better off not trying to get his facts from the pages of The Daily Telegraph; despite accurate briefing, it still managed to get things wrong. The problem may date back to 1919, but as those in receipt of pensions and the officials involved are unlikely to be alive now, I can scarcely see that there is any coherent rationale for a public inquiry. We have conducted exhaustive inquiries into what went on in Army pension schemes before they were unified under central management. So far, we have been unable to establish the exact facts. Let us not forget that only a small percentage of all those who receive service pensions are affected and not, as was suggested in The Daily Telegraph today, all those in receipt of a war pension—their pensions, of course, have never been taxed. A small number of people are therefore affected. We shall certainly try to establish who is involved, and if we can find any of them or their relatives, they will be repaid.

Tony McWalter: While my hon. Friend is pinned to the table, will he listen to the representations of those who have served a decade or more in the armed forces and are in receipt of no pension whatever? Will he bear it in mind that that can hardly be a just way for our wider society to repay those who risked their lives for its defence?

Lewis Moonie: As is the case with other public sector pensions prior to 1975, those who served for less than the prescribed time are not entitled to a pension. There is nothing new in that. There is no way that this Government—or, I suspect, any Government of any political hue—would be prepared to revisit that at this stage.

Julian Lewis: When we last discussed pensions in the House, the Minister kindly said that he would look again at the question of post-retirement marriages, where the officer concerned may have died after having married after the end of his period of service—often because the nature of his service encouraged that postponement—and the widow is not entitled to any pension at all. Has the hon. Gentleman had a chance to look into the matter, as he said he would, and if so, what are his initial thoughts on the subject?

Lewis Moonie: The matter is still under discussion with my officials in the light of the pensions review that is taking place. However, it is most unlikely that any change that was brought in would be retrospective. That is not to say that some changes in the margins may not be made with regard to future holders of a pension.

Desmond Swayne: On the substantive question before us, may I draw the Minister's attention to the answer given to me on 29 January by the Minister of State for Defence, his right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), who stated that
	"for the information of veterans organisations, we are looking to see whether it would be practical to give a broad estimate of the costs that might be involved for the major periods at issue"?—[Official Report, 29 January 2002; Vol. 379, c. 216W.]
	That is not just for the interest of veterans organisations. It is of interest to all hon. Members, so that, as a new generation of Members of Parliament, we can re-evaluate what it is possible to do for those people. As the Minister said in a generous answer to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), these matters should be kept under continuous review.
	Will the hon. Gentleman also consider whether there has been a substantial enough investigation of the taxation of invalidity pensions, given that he told us on 23 January that that went back to 1952, but his answer to me on5 February makes it clear that he has no idea when the problem dates back to? That requires an inquiry, at least.

Lewis Moonie: It would appear that we have a problem. I believe that it is of no interest to those who are in receipt of a pension whether the mistake took place in 1952 or 1919. I do not believe that that is relevant, other than to the individual holders. We have given a guarantee that we will find all of them and pay them the money that they are due. The total sum that has been expended up till now is about £6.5 million, so clearly my estimate of£30 million was a generous one. I do not anticipate that it will take as much as that to cover the matter, but all those who are due the money will get it.

Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty

Michael Clapham: What discussions he has had with his(a) Russian and (b) European counterparts since the US Administration decision to withdraw from the ABMT; and if he will make a statement.

Geoff Hoon: I last discussed missile defence with my European counterparts at the NATO Defence Ministers meetings on 18 December, and with the Russian Defence Minister, Sergei Ivanov, during his visit to London on20 December. The future of the anti-ballistic missile treaty is essentially a bilateral issue for the United States and Russia. We welcome the fact that they are continuing to work together to establish a new strategic framework based on openness and mutual trust.

Michael Clapham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the difference in view between Europe and America comes about because American military strategists have placed too great an emphasis on the capabilities of their perceived enemies, and have not considered intentions or the fact that diplomacy can reduce the risk, whereas the Europeans look towards a more constructive engagement? When he next meets his American counterparts, will my right hon. Friend convey to them the European view and make it clear that although there is a place for smart bombs, smart diplomacy is much more important in creating world peace?

Geoff Hoon: I do not accept my hon. Friend's over-neat division between a so-called European view and an American view, not least because President Bush has made it clear, for example, that he wants the United States' friends and allies to be protected against the ballistic missile threat. That implies that the distinction between Europe and the United States is not as my hon. Friend might suggest. Clearly, differences of emphasis exist, as they do between all members of NATO. Each country looks at these questions in the light of its national interest, as it should. Equally, I find that there is a remarkable unanimity of purpose among NATO allies when these issues are discussed.

Sydney Chapman: The Secretary of State will recall that, 18 months ago, in response to a Foreign Affairs Committee report on weapons of mass destruction, the Government said that they believed in preserving the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Since then, the United States President has said officially that he will withdraw from that treaty. What is the Government's position now?

Geoff Hoon: I have set out the Government's position, which is that this is essentially a matter for the United States and Russia. At the time of the Select Committee's report, the United Kingdom's position was that we saw some value in continuing the treaty. However, we recognise that it is up to the parties to the treaty to determine whether it has a role. What they have decided, which we very much welcome, is that there needs to be a new strategic framework, which the United States and Russia continue to discuss. We greatly welcomed and supported those discussions.

Malcolm Savidge: In October 2000, the Government said that they
	"value the stability which the ABM treaty provides and wish to see it preserved".
	Last week, the Foreign Secretary dismissed the treaty as a 30-year-old "product of its time." Have the Government officially published their reasons for that complete reversal of policy, or, to use the Minister for Europe's phrase, is this a case of us being "a patsy" for the United States?

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that my hon. Friend sees the world in such stark terms. Clearly, the world moves on and events require us to think through the policy implications of those changes. That is precisely what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out in his speech at King's college last week. He said that
	"we have to be open to new thinking. And this spirit informs our approach to Missile Defence . . . This treaty was a product of its time . . . But the world has changed."
	I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not appear to recognise that.

James Gray: The Secretary of State says at one moment that the anti-ballistic missile treaty is purely a matter for the two Governments concerned. The next minute, when reminded by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), he suddenly says, "Oh no. That is quite incorrect. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary changed that policy last week in his speech at King's college." However, the United States Defence Secretary, Mr. Rumsfeld, was asked at his daily press briefing on Friday:
	"Do you have any reaction to the comments of Jack Straw?"
	Mr. Rumsfeld replied:
	"Oh, I know who he is."
	At which point, his staff said, "Time to go, sir." Clearly, the Foreign Secretary's speech had little effect in America and, apparently, little effect here.
	Will the Secretary of State not accept that, in addition to the Foreign Secretary saying that the anti-ballistic missile treaty had had its day, he went on to say that he thought there was room, without question, for ballistic missile defence? Does that not constitute a fundamental change of policy by the Labour Government? Is it not proof that they are moving increasingly to what my right hon. Friend Iain Duncan Smith—[Interruption.] I am sorry. Are they not moving to what my right hon. Friend the leader of the Conservative party said some time ago? Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to tell the House, in words of one syllable, whether he supports the United States development of ballistic missile defence?

Geoff Hoon: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman appears to know the name of his leader.
	What my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said is something that I have said at the Dispatch Box at every Defence Question Time that I have done: missile defence could have a role to play as part of a comprehensive strategy to tackle the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. The Government have said that consistently, and will continue to do so.

Procurement (Jobs)

Lindsay Hoyle: If he will make a statement on the number of UK jobs sustained through MOD procurement.

Lewis Moonie: The number of UK jobs sustained through Ministry of Defence procurement for equipment and services has been estimated at 255,000. That includes the numbers employed directly in UK industry on MOD contracts and those employed indirectly through the supply chain—that is, subcontractors and others who supply the main contractor.

Lindsay Hoyle: I recognise how important UK manufacturing is to defence, but can we ensure that contracts are sustained and that UK contractors have easy access to them? I am thinking of the truck industry in central Lancashire, which is dependent on such contracts, as well as Royal Ordnance at Chorley, which has security of supply, and many others in the aerospace industry.

Lewis Moonie: It is our duty to obtain value for money from procurement spending. As the biggest single customer of the UK industry, the MOD has a continuing interest in ensuring that its supplier base, which includes specialist defence companies and general companies in most industrial sectors, is efficient and competitive and enables the achievement of maximum value for money in defence procurement. However, value for money is never just about price; other considerations are taken into account.

Angus Robertson: May I begin by associating my party with the Secretary of State's comments on the death of Princess Margaret?
	Will the Minister of State explain how many of the 255,000 defence-related jobs in the United Kingdom to which he referred are in Scotland? Will he also comment on his written answer of 1 February to my question about procurement expenditure? He said that in Scotland such expenditure is only 4.3 per cent. of the UK total—half our population share. Does he believe that that expenditure is too much, too little or about right?

Lewis Moonie: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who speaks for the Scottish National party, for unintentionally promoting me, but alas, I am still an Under-Secretary, not a Minister of State.
	I have no doubt that we would spend more on procurement in Scotland if there were more companies there producing goods that we could buy. If the hon. Gentleman considers shipbuilding—the major Scottish industry that supplies us—he will notice that we have been generous in our spending on the Clyde. Of course, defence spending is not just about procurement; in Scotland, a substantial proportion of such money isspent on Faslane, Lossiemouth in his constituency and Leuchars, which is near my own.

John Robertson: As my hon. Friend has said, work has been brought to the Clyde through the type 45. Will he join me in congratulating the taskforce on its efforts to secure employment for those on the Clyde who unfortunately became unemployed? Can he also explain why the contracts for the type 45 have yet to be signed?

Lewis Moonie: I can certainly say that the Clyde shipyard's taskforce has made a useful contribution to the debate on the Clyde's future. I can assure my hon. Friend that the contracts for the first six type 45 destroyers are still being negotiated. Placements are due shortly and the programme is on time.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister is aware from his recent and welcome visits to my constituency that it has a large military involvement. On procurement issues, he is also aware that there is considerable concern about the demolition of previous Army barracks. Will he meet me and a delegation of my constituents, who are worried about certain procurement decisions relating to the choice of demolition contractors for some of those projects?

Lewis Moonie: I am certainly prepared to take an interest in that matter. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me with the details, I shall be happy to contact him.

Stephen Hepburn: Is the Minister aware that the average age of a skilled worker on the Tyne is 50? If we are to save the shipyards as a strategic asset for the UK, we need to put MOD orders in UK yards. Will he confirm that that will be the policy, and assure us that he will not revert to the stupid policy that put £400 million of taxpayers' money and hundreds of shipyard workers' jobs into Germany?

Lewis Moonie: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware of the problems regarding skilled labour. In common with long-standing defence policy, all warships will be constructed in this country.

Missile Defence

David Chaytor: What recent discussions he has had with his US counterpart on the likely timing of a request to use UK facilities in respect of national missile defence.

Geoff Hoon: I regularly discuss missile defence with my United States counterpart. The US Administration have not yet decided what type of missile defence system they will seek to deploy, or when. We have received no request from the US for the use of sites in the United Kingdom for missile defence purposes, nor any indication of when any such request might be made.

David Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend think that the decision to abrogate the ABM treaty is likely to increase or decrease the likelihood of other countries adhering to their international agreements? Does he have any evidence that China has already adjusted its defence policy in response to the national missile defence programme?

Geoff Hoon: There is a proper procedure within the terms of the ABM treaty for either party to withdraw. The United States has invoked that procedure and has therefore remained within the terms of the treaty in that respect. It follows that, by consistently observing the terms of the international treaty, no particular message should be sent to any other country as to its action in respect of existing treaties.
	In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first supplementary question, it would seem that the formal withdrawal or notice of withdrawal from the terms of the treaty should not have any impact on any other international agreement. I have no evidence of any reaction by China to that decision, nor do I consider that there should be any reaction.

Nicholas Soames: Have the discussions that the Secretary of State has had with our American partners extended to improvements to the facilities at Fylingdales? In what circumstances was the extensive new work started without planning permission, and who was responsible?

Geoff Hoon: Given the events of 11 September, I judged it important that there should be an improvement in the level of security at the sensitive facilities at Fylingdales. I regret that the urgency of the work meant that formal planning permission was not sought. That matter has been put in hand and we are in discussion with the appropriate planning authorities. I hope that the House will recognise that in the light of events on 11 September, it was right that we should take urgent action to ensure that there was proper security at the base.
	The only circumstances in which that issue has been discussed with the United States is in the context of discussions with US officials based at Fylingdales. There has been contact with them about the need for improvements in security.

Louise Ellman: Did my right hon. Friend's discussions include consideration of the danger posed for nuclear proliferation by the 60,000 scientists from the former Soviet Union who have expert knowledge of weapons of mass destruction? Is he aware that many of those scientists are being approached by countries such as Iran and Iraq, which wish to develop their own nuclear arsenals?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend raises a real concern and a real means by which nuclear weapons could proliferate throughout the world. Much concern has been expressed by several countries about the problem. It is something that we shall continue to highlight.

George Osborne: Does the Secretary of State agree with the American President, who said in his state of the union address that missile defences were an essential protection against an axis of evil, or does he agree with the 218 Labour Members who signed a motion against missile defence?

Geoff Hoon: We certainly understand why the United States is concerned about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and why the US should wish to take effective action to deal with that. As I indicated to the House earlier, the Government's view is that missile defence may have a significant role to play in the context of preventing and dealing with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Glenda Jackson: As it would seem that my right hon. Friend's American counterpart cannot give him any direct information on whether there will be a national missile defence system or whether it will work, how can President Bush's promise to defend this country and Europe by means of NMD be brought into play? A sizeable body of scientific opinion and many military strategists believe—unlike the chocolate soldiers sitting on the Conservative Benches—that no such scheme could ever work and that, far from defending this country, it would place us in the front line of terrorist action.

Geoff Hoon: All I can say to my hon. Friend is that there is a significant and very well-funded programme in the United States for developing missile defence. That programme is at an early stage in its development, and I will not make any comments on its technical success at this stage, except to say that I am confident that the United States will deliver the system when it is ready to do so.

Overseas Deployment

Richard Bacon: If he will make a statement on the resources available to meet the commitments of the UK armed forces on active deployment overseas.

Adam Ingram: The net additional costs of meeting the UK armed forces' commitments on active deployment overseas are met either from the Ministry of Defence's share of the Government's conflict prevention budget or through a claim on the reserve. The costs of most of these operations are reported to Parliament in the normal way, and we hope to be in a position to announce shortly the total estimated costs this financial year for the operations in Afghanistan.

Richard Bacon: What is the current total trained strength of the armed forces? Will that increase or decrease this year?

Adam Ingram: I will provide the hon. Gentleman with the full figure in writing—

Richard Bacon: That is what I am asking for now.

Adam Ingram: I appreciate that. I will provide the details in writing, because the figures are very precise and I do not carry those three sets of precise figures in my head. The figure for the Army is more than 100,000, which we hope to raise to 103,000 or 104,000 by 2005. Similar projections are being made for the Navy and for the Royal Air Force, based on the type of recruitment and retention programmes that are being put in place, with which I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree.

Tam Dalyell: What are the latest trends in retention?

Adam Ingram: Upwards.

David Laws: Further to the comments by the Secretary of State over the weekend about UK armed forces being stretched to the limit, will the Minister tell us by when his Department's bid to the Treasury for the next round of the comprehensive spending review will have to be submitted? Will he assure us, in the light of the Secretary of State's comments, that the bid will be for a significant real increase in UK defence resources?

Adam Ingram: With reference to earlier questions, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is a long time since the Liberals have been in power. I am sure that he will understand that these issues are a matter for negotiation between Departments, and that the allocation of resources has to be made across the whole of the Government's spending profile. Those discussions are proceeding, and when a decision is taken, it will be announced.

Sierra Leone

Hugh Robertson: If he will make a statement on troop deployments in Sierra Leone.

Adam Ingram: As reported to the House on 18 December 2001, we are maintaining our current military presence in Sierra Leone of some 360 shore-based personnel over the period of the presidential and parliamentary elections scheduled for May 2002. We are making good progress towards our goal of helping to develop professional, accountable and effective Republic of Sierra Leone armed forces, which will be able to protect the security and integrity of Sierra Leone on their own. The international military advisory and training team will continue the task of developing the capacity of the Sierra Leone armed forces over the longer term.

Hugh Robertson: Bearing in mind that answer, what assessment has the Minister made of the likelihood of the Sierra Leone Army regaining control of the diamond mines, which are crucial to the security of Sierra Leone and of the neighbouring countries?

Adam Ingram: Clearly, we want to ensure that there are perfectly capable Sierra Leone armed forces through presidential and parliamentary elections, which, as I said, are scheduled for May 2002. A sizeable international force of 17,500 troops in UNAMSIL remains in Sierra Leone. Gaining control of the territory in Sierra Leone remains the objective.

James Arbuthnot: Will the Minister acknowledge the important and impressive role that the Chinook fleet, based in Odiham in my constituency, played last year in extraction from Sierra Leone? Does he accept that it is not good for the morale of such a fine fighting force to accuse pilots who die in the service of their country of gross negligence when no evidence exists to support that accusation?

Adam Ingram: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has changed his position on that. If my memory serves me correctly, he was a Defence Minister who authorised and approved the earlier examination. Perhaps he was not in office at that precise time, but he would have examined all the material that related to the incident to which he refers. As he knows, the other place has provided a detailed and comprehensive report, which we are currently examining. Of course, the Chinook fleet is carrying out an important and extensive role on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

Skyguard

Ian Liddell-Grainger: What was the outcome of the Skyguard test at Minehead last year.

Lewis Moonie: A Skyguard mobile tracking unit was deployed to a location at Dunster beach near Minehead, Somerset from 4 to 7 December to undertake covert monitoring of military low-flying aircraft, recording their heights and speeds. During the observation period, a total of 43 military aircraft were monitored; none was found to be in breach of regulations.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he cast his mind back a little further, before Skyguard came to Dunster beach? There was low flying over the nuclear power station at Hinckley Point, which, as the hon. Gentleman can imagine, caused enormous consternation in my constituency. Although the aircraft was just above the legal height, the Skyguard did much to reassure people that the Ministry of Defence was taking low-flying aircraft seriously. There is a large military installation in my constituency that shares the worries. In the height of a crisis, could Skyguard be used not only to reassure people, but to give warning of low-flying aircraft over important installations in the United Kingdom?

Lewis Moonie: I am well aware of people's anxieties when aircraft approach sensitive installations. Clear rules govern that. I found the Skyguard system useful. It is done covertly; no one is told of it in advance apart from local Members of Parliament who always ensure that the matter is kept out of the public eye. I have been struck by how seldom infringements of the rules occur. Our pilots act responsibly. Although I appreciate that low flying is a great burden, we do what we can to spread it and minimise the load. However, the current system ensures that we carefully monitor what happens and that rules are kept and not broken.

Pakistan

Gareth Thomas: What plans he has to visit Pakistan to discuss regional security; and if he will make a statement.

Geoff Hoon: I visited Pakistan on 5 and 6 February. During my visit I had meetings with President Musharraf and senior figures in the Ministry of Defence.
	I took the opportunity to thank President Musharraf for Pakistan's support for the coalition against international terrorism and for the international security assistance force in Kabul, as well as his public commitment to restoring democracy in Pakistan. I made the point that those positive developments have helped to strengthen the relations between our two countries and that, as part of that, we were taking appropriate steps to restore our defence relationship. I also underlined our anxieties over the current tensions between Pakistan and India. We are urging both sides to exercise restraint and to engage in dialogue.

Gareth Thomas: I am grateful for that reply. A significant number of my constituents have family and friends in Pakistan and India. They are deeply concerned about the rise in tension between those two states, and they look to Britain to continue to help and for measures to reduce the tension. Did my right hon. Friend receive specific assurances on his visit to Pakistan that there would be an attempt to resolve the differences between India and Pakistan by negotiation rather than by other means? Will he also tell hon. Members whether he envisages a bilateral defence arrangement, which would help to reduce tensions between the two nations?

Geoff Hoon: I was left in no doubt of Pakistan's recognition of the need to take action against terrorist organisations operating from its territory. We welcome President Musharraf's speech of 12 January, and the action that he has taken since. We have long called for an end to externally supported terrorism in Kashmir, and we are doing all we can to see the job completed. Meanwhile, we have urged both countries to continue to give time for the diplomatic route to work. As friends of both India and Pakistan, we will continue to urge them to persevere with dialogue and address all issues outstanding between them. It is clear that violence and terrorism will not bring a solution in Kashmir, but I am grateful for my hon. Friend's recognition that defence relations may help to do so.
	There will be a meeting of the defence co-operation forum in London on 5 and 6 March. That high-level meeting of officials is co-chaired by the Ministry of Defence's permanent secretary, and his equivalent from Pakistan. It reflects a similar defence consultative group in India that is chaired by the Ministry of Defence's permanent secretary and his Indian equivalent, which will meet in New Delhi on 25 and 26 February.

Andrew Robathan: There used to be close links between the British and the Pakistani armed forces, including exchanges between staff colleges.I understand that those links were stopped after the Pakistani nuclear tests. Have those links been reinstated, or are there plans to do so? What further assistance can British troops and training teams give to the Pakistanis in their fight against international terrorism?

Geoff Hoon: I anticipate that the meeting of the defence co-operation forum will lead to a framework for co-operation and contacts involving all three armed services. In addition, further contacts will include ships and other military visits, Pakistani access to United Kingdom military training opportunities, participation in bilateral exercises and visits by senior military and civilian defence officials.

Kosovo

David Crausby: If he will make a statement on the recent activities of UK forces in Kosovo.

Adam Ingram: The United Kingdom currently contributes some 3,000 personnel to KFOR operations in Kosovo as framework nation of the multinational brigade centre. UK forces take part in the full range of tasks carried out by KFOR. KFOR's main focus is the provision of a safe and secure environment in Kosovo, including the protection of minority communities and the countering of threats from extremist groups.

David Crausby: Attention is rightly focused on Afghanistan, but will the Minister congratulate our troops serving with KFOR? Will he ensure that the prospect of a spell in Kosovo does not become detrimental to the retention of the young men and women serving in our forces?

Adam Ingram: I would be only too happy to associate myself with my hon. Friend's views, and congratulate our forces on their very important work not just in Kosovo, but in all the other areas in which they are deployed internationally. I assure him that the expertise and knowledge gained on those deployments usually stand members of the armed forces in good stead for their future prospects in the service.

Mark Field: Which other countries are likely to be heavily involved in the peacekeeping mission in Kosovo? We hear much about the UK's involvement, but I would be interested to know which of our European partners are playing an equal role.

Adam Ingram: To give due justice to that question, it is better that I set out in detail all the individual nations that participate and all the contributions they make. The international effort in Kosovo is considerable: there are in the region of 42,000 troops in KFOR, 37,000 of whom are based in Kosovo. I shall provide the hon. Gentleman with a detailed breakdown of those deployments, which I shall place in the Library of the House.

Army Recruitment and Retention

Bob Russell: What action he is taking to recruit and retain soldiers to ensure that the Army is at its full complement.

Adam Ingram: The problem of recruitment and retention across the services is being tackled as a matter of the highest priority. Our aim is to maintain high levels of recruitment and retention through policies that meet our requirements and genuinely reflect the priorities of our people and their families.

Bob Russell: Will the Minister confirm that on 1 May 1997 the shortfall in the British Army was 4,933, and that the latest figures published on 1 December 2001 show that the shortfall is now 6,169? By any stretch of the imagination, that is an increase in the shortfall. Does he accept that the Government's policies on retention in and recruitment to the British Army have failed, and that that is adding to the problem of overstretch of our troops? I draw attention in particular to the troops based in my Colchester constituency.

Adam Ingram: It would be wrong to deny that we face difficulties. That is why we have introduced an extensive welfare package which is constantly reviewed, and which is intended to deal with retention in the best possible way. As for recruitment, I could spend the next hour describing in detail all the ways in which we have tried to tackle it. If the hon. Gentleman is truly concerned, however, I suggest he should begin to appreciate the complexities and difficulties, and support the Government's initiatives rather than trying to talk down the armed forces.

Business of the House

Robin Cook: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement about the business for Wednesday 13 February. The first item of business will now be a motion to approve the fifth report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. It will be followed by a debate on the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and by the remaining stages of the British Overseas Territories Bill [Lords.]

Eric Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for his announcement. I am sure that the House is pleased that the report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges is being dealt with promptly: that must be in the interests of all concerned. I also think it appropriate for us to deal with the question of the new Commissioner for Standards as promptly and expeditiously as possible.

Robin Cook: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support. My statement has been issued on the first sitting day after the report's publication, and I think it is in everyone's interest for us to move promptly and to be seen to do so.

Andrew Stunell: May I add the support of the Liberal Democrats? We think it right for progress to be made quickly, and we welcome the statement.

Robin Cook: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support.

Simon Thomas: I welcome the opportunity to debate these matters on Wednesday. Will the Leader of the House confirm that we shall also have an opportunity, when debating the behaviour of the former Minister for Europe, to discuss his dealings with the Romanian-British action group, the result of which so far appears to be the loss of 6,000 jobs in this country's steel industry and the donation of £125,000 to the Labour party?

Robin Cook: I cannot see any possible connection between the purchase of a steel company in Romania and the loss of jobs in the steel industry in Wales.
	I appointed the ambassador who drafted that letter. He is an excellent diplomat, and it was entirely right and proper of him to invite the Prime Minister of Britain to congratulate the Romanian Government on their decision. We should understand that, for the Romanian Government, that step towards breaking up a centrally planned economy was major and historic, and very important if Romania is to succeed as a member of the European Union.

Andrew Robathan: Given the Prime Minister's statements of unswerving support before the general election last year, will the Leader of the House arrange for him to be present at the debate on the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee so that he too can judge whether his actions and statements were wise?

Robin Cook: I am sure that that point will be made ad tedium during Wednesday's debate, and that plenty of my colleagues will be here to defend the Prime Minister.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Land Registration Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Electronic settlement

'The registrar may take such steps as he thinks fit for the purpose of securing the provision of a system of electronic settlement in relation to transactions involving registration.'.—[Mr. Wills.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—[Mr. Wills.]

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 2—Incidental powers: companies.
	Government amendments Nos. 1 to 6.

William Cash: The Law Society and others have considered the new clauses and amendments. We understand why it is proposed that the registrar be given these powers. We have no objection to the Government's proposals.

Adrian Sanders: The Liberal Democrats have no objection to the new clause either.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Incidental powers: companies

(1) If the registrar considers it expedient to do so in connection with his functions under section 69(3)(a), 92(1), [Electronic settlement] or 104(1) or paragraph 10 of Schedule 5, he may—
	(a) form, or participate in the formation of, a company, or
	(b) purchase, or invest in, a company.
	(2) In this section—
	"company" means a company within the meaning of the Companies Act 1985;
	"invest" means invest in any way (whether by acquiring assets, securities or rights or otherwise).
	(3) This section is without prejudice to any powers of the registrar exercisable otherwise than by virtue of this section.'.—[Mr. Wills.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 69
	 — 
	Historical information

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 25, line 10, at end insert—
	'(3) The registrar may—
	(a) arrange for the provision of information about the history of registered titles, and
	(b) authorise anyone who has the function of providing information under paragraph (a) to have access on such terms as the registrar thinks fit to any relevant information kept by him.'.—[Mr. Wills.]

Clause 91
	 — 
	Electronic dispositions: formalities

William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 33, line 5, after "certified", insert—
	'(ca) each electronic signature was made by, or with the authority of, the person whose signature it purports to be,'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 12, line 13, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
	'(6) A document to which this section applies is to be regarded for the purposes of any enactment as authenticated only if it was sent by the purported originator or with the authority of the purported originator.'.

William Cash: We examined the clause's provisions in Committee, but the Law Society remains concerned that the Government have not yet given the right assurances.
	A number of assurances have been given that as a matter of what is described as "practice" the Government would not pursue solicitors if matters went wrong—if an electronic signature was not made by or with the authority of the person whose signature it purported to be and the issue became highly contentious, which could easily happen. The Law Society would be extremely glad to hear an acknowledgment on the Floor of the House that, as a matter of law, the Government do not intend to create new rights of subrogation against solicitors and that they will not pursue them under existing arrangements.

Michael Wills: indicated assent

William Cash: I am glad that the Minister nods. I am sure that he appreciates that this is an important question. We support the new arrangements because they will modernise the process of land registration, but the fact remains that we must ensure not only that the public have the advantages, but that unnecessary difficulties are not caused for the profession—solicitors and others in the conveyancing sector. They should not be unfairly and unreasonably pursued where the circumstances covered by my amendment arise.
	Users of the conveyancing system—not only members of the public buying a home but commercial enterprises and inward investors buying factories and offices in England and Wales and the conveyancers acting for them—should not be left in any doubt about whether a forged or impersonated signature may be held to be binding. The law should make it clear that with electronic documents, as with paper ones, individuals, firms and companies are not liable where they have neither made nor authorised a signature.
	The Law Society has made it clear that it would be unacceptable if solicitors had to carry the risk of their electronic signature keys being obtained and misused by third parties. The use of presumptions and statutory terms, and their contractual equivalents, should be ruled out by clear statutory language. The relying party should have to prove that a disputed signature was made by or with the authority of the purported signatory. The amendment would bring the law on paper documents into line with Australian legislation.
	The provision should apply generally to conveyancing documents, whether or not they purport to be executed by solicitors acting as agents. If technology is developed to eliminate the risk of a user being impersonated, relying parties will find their burden of proof easier to discharge, but currently available technology, including smart cards or biometric identifiers, is far from being able to achieve that objective. Relying parties therefore face real risks in accepting electronic signatures, which might be undetectable forgeries, but it would be wrong to allow them to solve the problem by transferring the risk to purported signatories.
	Relying parties that are major institutions—for example, the Land Registry, other Government agencies or financial institutions—are far better placed than firms of solicitors to promote the development of technology to eliminate the risks. That is a further reason for ensuring that they continue to carry those risks. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me an assurance on the proposals.
	Our system must be secure if we are to retain the confidence not only of the public in their house-buying processes but of commercial enterprises and inward investors buying factories and offices in England and Wales. Individuals, firms and companies should not be liable where authority was not given. The wording used in amendment No.12 is adapted from an Australian statute—section 15 of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999, entitled "Attribution of electronic communications".
	For the purposes of electronic conveyancing, the process envisages that conveyancers will execute documents on behalf of their clients as agents. There is an absolute warranty of authority by the solicitor as agent. With a paper-based system, if the solicitor has doubts about the identity of his client or is unwilling to sign on his behalf, the solicitor simply ensures that the client signs the relevant documents himself. If there were to be a compulsory electronic system, the solicitor would not have that choice.
	It would not necessarily be a problem if at the beginning of a transaction solicitors were able to identify clients on whose behalf they were not prepared to sign as agents, but if matters occurred pre-exchange that made the solicitor concerned or uneasy about signing on behalf of a client, that would cause problems for all the parties to an entire chain of transactions in domestic conveyancing and, where applicable, the commercial business of the commercial tenant.
	The Minister has acknowledged that conveyancers must be able to work with the system or systems that are introduced. If a solicitor is not willing to execute on behalf of his client because he or she perceives the risk to be too great, the system simply will not operate as envisaged, or at all.
	The Government have said that if a solicitor executed on behalf of a client who was not who he purported to be, the instrument should not have been registered because it was a mistake, and that Her Majesty's Land Registry would indemnify those who suffered loss by relying on the register, but would not exercise its rights to claim its loss against solicitors—in other words, the whole thing would be dealt with by the Land Registry. The fact that the Land Registry has rights of subrogation, which it says it will not exercise unless conveyancers are fraudulent or negligent, does not, I am afraid, satisfy me or give comfort to conveyancing professionals.
	In the other place, it was made clear that the Land Registry believes that it is the arbiter of whether it should seek recourse against conveyancing professionals. To say the least, that is not conducive to ensuring that conveyancers are able to accept the risks of operating the Government's new system. Having the Land Registry put on record that it will decide whether to seek recovery of moneys paid out on the basis of bad cases, such as fraud or negligence, does not meet the concerns of those in the profession, particularly the Law Society, for two reasons.
	The first is that the policy of the Government or the Land Registry could change, perhaps after conveyancers have committed substantial resources to the adoption of electronic conveyancing. The profession would be much better protected by the need for such a change to be reflected in primary legislation. Secondly, the provisions that would be affected by the amendment would apply not only to documents to which the Land Registry would be required to give effect, such as the transfers of registered land, but to documents that operate between private parties, such as contracts relating to land. Conveyancers need a provision binding not only on the Land Registry, for which the Government can speak, but on private parties to land transactions, for whom they cannot. I hope that the Minister will give me the assurances that I seek, and I shall be glad to hear what he has to say.

Michael Wills: In speaking to amendment No. 9, I shall also speak to amendment 12. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) for his explanation of amendment No. 9. We discussed the issue at some length in Committee, and I understand the concerns that have given rise to the amendment, so I hope that I will not try the patience of the House by covering familiar ground in an effort to provide genuine reassurance on this matter.
	I wish to deal with one thing straight away: the hon. Gentleman referred to the Australian Electronic Transactions Act 1999, which expressly restates the Australian common law in relation to the attribution of communications. It is a general statute that relates to e-commerce; it provides a default position from which the parties may derogate, but it does not provide a compelling precedent in this case.
	The purpose of the amendment is ostensibly to add an additional paragraph to clause 91(3). That subsection specifies the conditions that an electronic document must satisfy to be as effective as its paper counterpart. The proposed new subsection would require each electronic signature to be made by, or with the authority of, the person whose signature it purports to be. In other words, a person should only be bound if he or she intended to be bound. That may sound reasonable enough, but it is not the way to achieve a fair result.
	As has been said on several occasions during the passage of the Bill, the Bill amends the general law only where necessary. In respect of forged or fraudulent electronic documents, the same general law will apply as applies to their paper equivalents. The same remedies of rectification and indemnity under the land registration system will also be available. The circumstances in which the register will be rectified are designed to ensure the protection of innocent purchasers who take possession of registered land under a disposition that happens to be a forgery—for example, where the electronic instrument that transfers the title is electronically signed without the authority of the landowner. The landowner whose land has been transferred under the forged transfer will, in those circumstances, recover indemnity from the registry for his or her loss.
	It seems more likely that the amendment would change the current position. Arguably, it would distort the operation of the principles of fairness that underpin the law to give greater protection to the person whose electronic signature is abused, most likely a conveyancer, at the expense of the innocent buyer, probably an individual home buyer. I am not sure that that change can be justified. It is fundamental to the protection of consumers and businesses that the established principles of law that apply to transactions in paper form should apply to electronic documents.
	Underlying the amendment is the concern—I hope I do not caricature it—that solicitors and other practitioners will not be able to administer their affairs in such a way that the perceived risk of using an electronic signature can be properly managed. I am happy to repeat the assurance that I gave in Committee that, as a matter of practice, the Land Registry will exercise its right of recourse only against negligent or fraudulent parties. Innocent, competent practitioners have nothing to fear. If they have acted in accordance with the terms of their network access agreement and have taken the sensible steps needed to preserve a system's security, they should not bear the liability for harm caused by careless, malicious or criminal action taken by others. That is an important point.

William Cash: The Minister will recollect that I dealt with what he said about a matter of practice. My purpose is to nudge him towards acknowledging on the Floor of the House that the Government do not intend to create new rights of subrogation against solicitors and would not pursue them under existing law. It is not simply a case of having something that is a matter of practice. What I am driving at is confirmation by the Government that they do not want to create a new right of subrogation against solicitors.
	A huge number of people are involved in this important arena. We often discuss general principles when we legislate, but we then have the problem of how something will work in practice. In this case, we have to consider what concerns the individual practitioner who wants to give a good service to his client. We have new and ingenuous methods of achieving efficient land registration and, in such circumstances, it is difficult for the professionals not to be worried that they might be put in an invidious position. Just as there are benefits to the clients of lawyers who engage in conveyancing, so there is a reasonable footing on which practitioners themselves can be reassured.

Michael Wills: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and can reassure him that there is no intention to create new rights against conveyancers. However, I must make it clear that there is no justification for giving conveyancers blanket protection from the consequences of their actions if they have not complied with access agreements or have failed to take the sensible precautions of information technology security that clients would expect in other areas of business. That is what the amendment would achieve at the taxpayers' expense.
	I am happy to confirm that the principles that have guided the Land Registry in relation to the paper system will continue to operate in the new world of electronic conveyancing. In particular, the Land Registry accepts that the burden lies with it to satisfy itself that there has been a bad case of fraud or negligence before seeking recourse against a conveyancer.
	The use of electronic signatures will not be confined to electronic conveyancing, nor will the signature of electronic documents by agents occur only in the context of electronic conveyancing. Electronic signatures are a developing product, and no one knows what form they will take in five, 10 or 20 years' time. What is clear now is that the challenge of creating a secure and trusted way of conducting electronic business is a huge prize to be won, and in developing the new electronic conveyancing system, the Land Registry will, as has been said many times in this House and in another place, work with the professions and the industry to develop a system that is robust and secure. The rules governing the terms of use of that system under network access agreements will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and will be built on consultation with practitioners and others.
	Some practitioners may be reluctant to enter the electronic age. It is for them to decide on the benefits and burdens, but the Government are determined to develop electronic conveyancing as a means to a better conveyancing system and we are confident that we will find partners willing to work with us in achieving that end. I hope that in light of my comments the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw amendment No. 9.
	Amendment No. 12 covers much the same ground as amendment No. 9, and takes a similar form, although it is restricted to authentication by agents. It was discussed as amendment No. 66 in Committee. It seeks to replace clause 91(6) with a provision specifying that electronic documents that comply with clause 91 are to be regarded as authenticated only if sent by, or with the authority of, the purported originator. "Authenticated" in this context refers to the method of indicating that the electronic message really came from the stated source.
	In the paper world, the process of authentication is often almost subliminal. In many cases, a handwritten signature of a firm's business name on a piece of printed stationery is taken as sufficient, whether or not the signature is recognised from previous exchanges or indeed is legible. The electronic world may be more secure but the advantages of electronic commerce are not without cost. Part of the price of preserving the integrity of any computer system is continual vigilance. Electronic identities will have to be carefully guarded and internal management systems made as robust as possible and enforced as rigorously as possible.
	There will always be a risk of successful attack, but let us remember two things. First, there is at least as great a risk in the paper world, where forgery is more readily accomplished and standards of checking many times less absolute. Secondly, there is every incentive for the Land Registry, conveyancers and their clients to make the system as secure as possible.
	In tabling the amendment, the hon. Gentleman raises the spectre of the unauthorised electronic document. The amendment is intended to limit clause 91 by introducing a condition that a document that would otherwise be effective under the clause will be effective only if was sent by the purported originator or with the authority of the purported originator. The result would be to complicate the conveyancing process by encouraging conveyancers to require proof of where a communication was sent from and with whose authority.
	My other objections to the amendment are basically the same as my objections to amendment No. 9. It would create an unnecessary difference between the paper and the electronic systems of dealing in conveyancing. Even worse, it would introduce an undesirable distinction between the rules applying to conveyancing and those to be found in the general law. It would distort the operation of the principles of indemnity and rectification in land registration law.
	I also suggest to the House that the amendment represents an undesirably absolutist approach to the use of electronic systems. In effect, it suggests that they should not be used unless they can be absolutely guaranteed to be secure for all eternity. That is simply not realistic, even in the hon. Gentleman's world. What we have to look for instead, as in all other areas of electronic commerce, is a sensible and balanced approach to the management of risk, with a regulatory framework that is proportionate to the actual dangers.
	The Land Registry will of course seek to strike such a balance in devising arrangements for ensuring proper authorisation by clients where conveyancers are to sign electronically on their behalf. Those arrangements will be the subject of detailed consultation on the basis of actual and practical proposals, and they will be piloted. That is the way, I suggest, in which we should seek to meet the legitimate concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
	I would add that the loss of subsection (6) would be unacceptable, since it will fulfil a small but useful technical purpose in the facilitation of electronic conveyancing. I hope that in light of those extensive comments the hon. Gentleman will not press amendment No. 12.

Adrian Sanders: I am glad that the Minister has already answered some of the questions that I was going to ask—he must have a crystal ball. The way in which the technology is advancing and some of the assurances given in Committee make it clear that an electronic system is as secure as a paper-based system, if not more so. I think that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is getting at what lies behind any system—public confidence. The public recognise the paper-based system and the security within that, and it will be some time before they accept that electronic security systems protect their interests perhaps even better than a paper-based system. Confidence is therefore everything.
	Who will determine who is guilty of negligence or fraudulent behaviour within the system? I understand from the Minister's comments that that will take place within the Land Registry, but at what point does the law take over? Who investigates? Who determines? Is it a matter for the police? Is evidence gathered by the Land Registry, or is the whole matter passed over to the constabulary?
	I have a great deal of sympathy with both amendments, but I think on balance that we will have to wait and see. The Minister mentioned further technological advances: they will come and they will build confidence in the system. The Government must avoid a dual system of both paper-based and electronic conveyancing, as that would cause confusion. At some point the electronic system will take over from the paper-based system, but building in an inhibitor to electronic conveyancing, which I think would be the effect of the amendments, will not allow the idea to fly, confidence to be built, and the public to be won over. I hope that the Minister can answer my questions.

William Cash: I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance on amendment No. 9. We have on a mutually satisfactory basis edged the issue along a little bit. The assurance he has given—

Michael Wills: rose—

William Cash: I gather he has yet another assurance to give. Let us hope for the best.

Michael Wills: Before the hon. Member for Stone concludes that he feels able to withdraw the amendments, as I hope he will, I should like to answer the questions asked by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) about the determination of guilt of fraudulence. He is right that it will be, in the first instance, for the Land Registry to determine what it thinks—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The best way to proceed would be to allow the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) to finish his comments.

William Cash: That is very kind of you, Mr. Speaker. It is always an enormous satisfaction to anyone standing at the Dispatch Box to know that he will be allowed to complete his speech.
	I thank the Minister for edging the matter a little further forward. I hear what he says about amendment No. 12, but would like to add that we are dealing with a new technology. The profession as a whole—and its clients—are faced with a new system that, for obvious reasons, has not been tested. No one is sure how it will all pan out. I have no doubt that we shall all be extremely grateful to the experts, whom we heaped with praise in Committee. None the less, only time will tell.
	It would be a pity if the Minister created a blot on his own landscape—if our concerns about the way in which the system will operate in practice were borne out.
	Given the unbelievable and extraordinary number of Members attending the debate, it would be invidious of me to seek to divide the House. However, I have made my point, and the Minister has responded. He has given me half a cake, which I am glad of. On the principle that Marie Antoinette got it wrong when she said, "Let them eat cake", I shall have to settle for that.
	Without prejudice to what I have said and what the future may hold, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Michael Wills: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Because of the procedures of the House, and as the hon. Member for Stone has sought to withdraw his amendment, I cannot say that it would be best if the Minister did not speak, but I think that he knows what I mean.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 101
	 — 
	Fee orders

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 36, line 27, after "section" insert "69(3)(b) or".—[Mr. Wills.]

Clause 104
	 — 
	Consultancy and advisory services

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 37, line 2, after "provide" insert—
	', or arrange for the provision of,'.
	No. 4, in page 37, line 4, after "section" insert "by the registrar".
	No. 5, in page 37, line 5, leave out "the registrar" and insert "he".—[Mr. Wills.]

Clause 126
	 — 
	Rules, regulations and orders

William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 42, line 39, at end insert—
	'(4A) Before making any order under any provision of this Act, the Lord Chancellor shall consult the Rule Committee.'.
	Among other things, the clause prescribes certain powers that are conferred on the Lord Chancellor to make not only rules and regulations but
	"different provision for different cases."
	Furthermore, any such power is to be exercisable by statutory instrument. The clause then explains the procedure to be followed, where the statutory instrument is laid before Parliament.
	Subsection (4) states that a statutory instrument concerning land registration rules, certain rules under part II or section 119, regulations under paragraph 5 of schedule 9 or certain orders
	"is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
	However—the Minister has heard me express a view on this before—there is no explicit provision that, when any such order is made, the Lord Chancellor is under an obligation to consult the rule committee.
	Significant practical implications arise in respect of a number of the important changes that are being made, such as extending compulsory registration of title or varying the length of time required for upgrading a possessory title by order. The principle on which consultation operates as a matter of law is no doubt well known to the Minister and, for that matter, most emphatically to the Lord Chancellor, who is required to consult all and sundry, much as Gilbert and Sullivan have required him to sing many a song for his sins since the composition of "Iolanthe" or any other great opera. The lord high executioner in this case, the Lord Chancellor, has that facility. He should be required, in my judgment and that of professionals, to consult the rule committee. It would be astonishing if the Government wanted to resist any such provision. I am interested to learn whether the Minister has an ingenious way of satisfying me that the lack of consultation in the Bill is compensated for by the fact that the consultation will take place in practice. He knows that consultation means no more than "I hear what you say." There is substantial case law on the subject; one does not have to comply with the arguments made during consultation, but one is required to listen.
	I know that the Government are a listening Government; at least, I am told that they are. I believe that the Minister is a listening Minister; it would be progress if he assured us that the Lord Chancellor will consult the rule committee, even if he is not prepared to accept my simple amendment. If he is not prepared to give that assurance, it follows that, astonishingly, the Government have no intention of consulting the rule committee. I am engaging in this didactic exchange entirely on my own and am waiting for him to respond. I am sure that he understands that this is an important matter, and will want to consult the rule committee.

Michael Wills: indicated assent

William Cash: I am glad that the Minister has just indicated that he will do so. However, if he does not wish to entrench my proposal in legislation, I trust that he can give me an assurance that the rule committee will be consulted as a matter of course. I should be delighted if he would do so, and shall not to try to pre-empt or anticipate what he has to say. It is not only members of the rule committee who expect an assurance, but everyone in the professions, as well as the many millions of people concerned about the way in which the rules, regulations and orders will operate. If the Minister can give that assurance in the best spirit of transparency, to which, I know, he is patriotically committed, that will guarantee that the measure can go ahead as smoothly as possible.

Michael Wills: I know that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) takes these matters extremely seriously, so I shall try, at some length, to reassure him.
	There are two types of order-making power in the Bill. I will deal first with the administrative orders for running the land registration system, of which there are three: a power under clause 99, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, to designate a particular land registry office as the proper office for certain applications; a power under clause 101 to make fees orders for dealings with the registry; and a power under clause 111 to make fees orders for dealings with the adjudicator.
	The power to designate where particular applications are handled is an internal matter for the Land Registry, allowing the registrar to even out the levels of work, and therefore processing times, at different offices. It also allows him to set up specialist teams to deal with complex or rare types of applications. Those orders are often made at relatively short notice to address difficulties as they arise. As now, it is intended that they should be made swiftly, and merely laid before Parliament afterwards. There is no need to create any greater scrutiny or delay in their implementation by involving the rule committee; the Bill as drafted reflects that.
	The second power is to make a fees order for dealing with the registry itself. Fees orders are currently made by the Lord Chancellor with the advice and assistance of the rule committee; I am pleased to be able to confirm to the hon. Gentleman that that situation will continue under clause 101.
	The other rule-making power that I mentioned is that relating to the fees of the adjudicator. As I explained in the Second Reading Committee on 29 November 2001 at column 9 of Hansard, the adjudicator provisions are designed to establish a new and independent judicial officer to determine registration disputes between individuals. Responsibility for the administrative arrangements for the new office will lie with the Lord Chancellor's Department, not the Land Registry. It is not appropriate to jeopardise that independence by subjecting the adjudicator rules or the fees order to the scrutiny of the Land Registry's own rule committee.
	Of the three administrative order-making powers under the Bill, only one should fall within the scrutiny of the rule committee, and the Bill as drafted achieves that already.
	I turn to the second category of order-making powers, which cover a number of rather disparate areas. First, there will be orders to extend beyond the changes introduced by the Bill the triggers for compulsory registration of land in general, and for demesne land. Then there are orders to adjust the period after which upgrading of title can occur. Finally, there will be orders to extend the system to cover submarine land, and to adjust the qualifying term of leases for compulsory registration of title. All these order-making powers are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
	As the powers involve not the running of the land registration system, but adjustments to the statutory framework under which it operates, it is Parliament rather than the rule committee that should direct the order-making process.
	The changes that will be brought about by orders made to extend triggers for compulsory registration of title and to reduce the length of leases requiring registration will have a particular impact on the operation of the property market. The relevant clauses therefore impose duties on the Lord Chancellor to consult before exercising those powers.
	The Government made a commitment in another place to consult the rule committee during the consultation process under those clauses, a commitment which I was happy to repeat during Committee debates. The rule committee members will, however, be consulted as individuals who have useful background knowledge and expertise to add value to the discussion, but the responsibility for the scrutiny of the orders remains with Parliament.
	With regard to these more fundamental order-making powers, the Government believe that the involvement of the rule committee members is already ensured when and where it is of value, and in a way befitting their role in that order-making process.
	Given my explanation and the importance which I know the hon. Gentleman attaches to scrutiny by Parliament, I invite him to withdraw his amendment.

William Cash: As usual, the Minister has gone to some length to explain the Government's arguments, and I am grateful to him for his competent explanation of their approach. I believe that it is still desirable for the provision to be included in the Bill, but I gather—I would be grateful if the Minister could at least nod, if he thinks that I have got the message right—that for practical purposes, the rule committee will be engaged in a proper consultative process, notwithstanding the fact that he does not want that to be set out in the Bill.

Michael Wills: indicated assent

William Cash: I was a little concerned when I heard the Minister say—I do not want to misquote him—that perhaps it would be more appropriate for the matter to be left to Parliament than to dealings with the rule committee. Enthusiastic as I am about the democracy that lies at the heart of our system and on the Floor of the House, having served for some years on the Statutory Instruments Committee—a burden that I was invited to sustain by the Whips of the time, which gave me an opportunity to see the workings of that Committee, and the manner in which statutory instruments then move inexorably to the Floor of the House and receive such detailed examination, as we all know—I would have much more faith in the Minister's assurance that the rule committee would be involved in the consultative process, in the knowledge that its members have their feet on the ground and would deal with these matters in a practical manner.
	The issues will indeed crop up and will be far better dealt with by those who are engaged in professional practice and who have hands-on dealings with the consequences of the matters covered by orders and regulations. I would not mind betting that I will turn out to be right, and that a good deal more consideration will be given to these matters by the rule committee than would ever be contemplated by the great authority of the Statutory Instruments Committee or by Members of Parliament. Without wishing to be cynical, I would qualify what the Minister said. In practice, these matters will be sorted out on the ground with the rule committee. I am glad that he has indicated that that is how he thinks it will work in practice, and I hope that he is right.
	On the basis that the Minister and I have arrived at something of a mutual understanding, and that there will be a degree of consultation in practice, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 5
	 — 
	Land Registry Network

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 55, line 9, after "provide" insert—
	', or arrange for the provision of,'.—[Mr. Wills.]

Schedule 8
	 — 
	Indemnities

William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 61, line 23, at end insert—
	'(i) the exercise by the court of its powers under section 46.'.
	The amendment relates to schedule 8, which deals with indemnities and the entitlement to them. In turn, the schedule is connected with clause 102. The reason for the amendment boils down to the fact that there appears to be an omission in respect of those circumstances in which a person should reasonably be entitled to be indemnified by the registrar if he suffers loss. Under the schedule, those circumstances include
	"rectification of the register . . . a mistake whose correction would involve rectification of the register . . . a mistake in an official search."
	Those things really happen. We may not be overwhelmed by the attention of many hon. Members this afternoon, but they would be deeply concerned if they found that a mistake in an official document affected their home, and they might all come flooding back into the House.

Michael Wills: I wish that they would all turn up.

William Cash: So do I.
	Other circumstances include
	"a mistake in a document kept by the registrar which is not an original and is referred to in the register".
	Alternatively, there might be
	"the loss or destruction of a document lodged at the registry for inspection or safe custody",
	or
	"a mistake in the cautions register".
	Let us imagine that happening in the Whips Office. There might also be a
	"failure by the registrar to perform his duty under section 50."
	We propose that there should be a further category of entitlement to indemnity in circumstances in which the power of the court to order entry was involved. To the provisions whereby a person would be entitled to be indemnified by the registrar if he suffered loss because of the other matters to which I have referred, the amendment would add:
	"the exercise by the court of its powers under section 46."
	As I said, that refers to the power of the court to order entry. Under clause 46, that could arise
	"If it appears to the court that it is necessary or desirable to do so for the purpose of protecting a right or claim in relation to a registered estate or charge".
	The court could then
	"make an order requiring the registrar to enter a restriction in the register."
	Such circumstances could give rise to a mistake or something similar.
	Clause 46(2) adds:
	"No order . . . may be made for the purpose of protecting the priority of an interest which is, or could be, the subject of a notice."
	Although the court may exercise its power subject to such terms and conditions as it thinks fit, that power would not extend—I do not think that the Minister would argue that it would—to a person having the entitlement to being indemnified by the registrar if that person suffered as a result of the court exercising its powers under clause 46.
	The object of the amendment is to ensure that priority of interest is maintained in all but the most extreme circumstances. In circumstances in which priority is lost, the person involved should be entitled to indemnity. At present, the Bill contains insufficient safeguards for the public, but the amendment would help to rectify that problem. At present, there is an absolute right for a person whose position has been prejudiced to receive an indemnity, but citizens will be powerless unless that point is clearly spelled out.
	If the Bill is enacted in its current form, will the position of a totally innocent person be prejudiced? Will the person who has priority on the search have locus standi in the subsequent proceedings? That is the key question, because that person must be heard. If he is not, that would be against the rules of natural justice and human rights.
	Just in case the Minister wants further reassurance from those who may be able to amplify the points that he wishes to make, I repeat my questions. Is it intended that the person who has priority on the search will have locus standi in the subsequent proceedings? Is it not right that that person be heard? If he is not, is that not against the rules of natural justice and human rights?

Harry Barnes: I am interested in the amendment because I am interested in cases in which courts make decisions that adversely affect those who believe that their rights were established by Land Registry entries that were correct. In some cases, however, the decisions of a court are perverse. Such decisions may require a land registrar to alter the recorded material and that may not be in the interests of the purchaser of the property. That is because courts sometimes make decisions in which they say what is being purchased is not what is described in the deeds, but what was seen by the purchaser. There may be a distinction between the two.
	I cited such a case in Committee, but I appreciate that there is much in the Bill to ensure that the evidence provided by the Land Registry will usually hold sway with the courts. The law will be tightened up by the Bill. Its provision for indemnity for errors committed by the Land Registry are important, but knock-on consequences may arise as a result of decisions made by the courts. The Bill might reduce the effect of those consequences, and I am interested in any provision that means that someone adversely affected by a court decision receives indemnity. I am not sure that the amendment would deal with the cases that interest me, but I wish to flag up my concerns.

Michael Wills: The amendment would impose on the registrar a liability to pay indemnity when the court exercised its powers under clause 46 and the person in question suffered loss as a result. I understand the concerns voiced by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who want to ensure effective protection for those whose interests might, through no fault of their own, be adversely affected by use of the powers in clause 46. However, as I explained in Committee, there is a way to achieve that other than through invoking the registrar's indemnity powers. The litigation in question would be beyond the registrar's jurisdiction, so another, more appropriate method would be available.
	Of course, as I said in Committee, if a person suffers loss outside of litigation through a mistake that falls within the scope of schedule 8—for example, if a restriction is mistakenly entered against the wrong title—indemnity will be payable. In the first circumstance to which the hon. Member for Stone referred, indemnity would be payable. The registry, not the courts, is involved in such matters, for which it should make payments and for which, in some cases at least, it may be responsible. However, the amendment deals with a completely different issue—when there is no mistake on the register and litigation is instigated by one of the parties.
	Clause 46 empowers the court to require the registrar to enter a restriction. It is likely that that power will be used where an inhibition is currently entered in the register—for example, where the court grants a freezing injunction. The power to require a restriction to be entered may be exercised, even where an intending purchaser has protected himself or herself by making a priority search under clause 72. Under clause 46(3), the court may direct that an entry made under clause 46 shall have overriding priority. Under subsection (5), the court may make the exercise of its powers under subsection (3) subject to such terms and conditions as it thinks fit.
	One of the most likely uses of that power is made clear in paragraph 6533 of the joint Law Commission and Land Registry report, "Land Registration for the 21st Century: A Conveyancing Revolution". Paragraph 6533 explains that the court would probably make an order under subsection (3) only if the applicant undertook to indemnify any person who suffered loss in consequence.
	We consider subsection (5) sufficiently wide to enable the court to require such an undertaking, but discussion of the issue in Committee caused the Government to register the fact that the Civil Procedures Rules Committee would be invited to consider drawing the matter to the court's attention if there were doubt about the court's considering use of subsection (5).
	In reality, the matter is akin to cases in which the court grants an interim injunction. In such cases, the court will invariably require the applicant to give an undertaking in damages, should he or she lose when the case comes to trial. In other words, it will be for the applicant for an order under clause 46(3) to provide the necessary indemnity, not the registrar. The Government consider that the preferable course, because the registrar has no interest in the matter. It is difficult to see why the taxpayer should pick up the tab for litigation over which the registrar has absolutely no control and from which the public derive no benefit.
	In the light of my comments, I hope that the hon. Member for Stone will withdraw the amendment.

William Cash: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I may.
	I listened with care to the Minister and I am extremely interested in his concluding remarks, which seem to acknowledge that the issue is not all that simple and that the circumstances to which I referred could arise. I am happy to withdraw the amendment, with this qualification: if things go wrong—we cannot read a crystal ball or be certain of how the provision will work in practice—and matters do not proceed quite as the Minister and his advisers hope, the problem will be rectified.
	With respect to the question of indemnities in general and the remarks of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), I simply say that what he referred to is not directly relevant to clause 46, but he is right to be concerned that titles and matters that go on the register lead to serious problems from time to time. Courts are not infallible, nor is the Land Registry. The greatest possible care must be taken to ensure that the most important aspect—not the creation of the law, but the right solutions for the public at large—is delivered in respect of contention over, for example, a boundary dispute or a title's validity.
	Bearing in mind all those matters, it is right to withdraw the amendment in the light of what the Minister said, but subject to the reservations that I expressed as to the manner in which the Bill may apply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Michael Wills: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank the members of the two Committees who examined the Bill, which is unusual in a number of ways. First, it is the product of an extensive programme of work undertaken jointly by the Law Commission and Her Majesty's Land Registry. Both here and in another place, the result has been widely welcomed as an admirable balance between looking back and looking forward. Secondly, it provides a re-examination of the legislation from first principles—a task for which the Law Commission is particularly suited and one that the draft Bill achieved with particular distinction. I have already paid tribute to the achievement of Charles Harpum, the former law commissioner responsible for the report, and to the distinguished parliamentary counsel who worked with him, and I happily do so again. We are extremely grateful for their work on the Bill.
	It is unusual, if not unprecedented, for a Department to collaborate with the Law Commission on a report, but the way in which the Bill benefits from the Land Registry's unparalleled knowledge of the operation of land registration and its aim of improving the registry's service to its customers shows how successful such collaboration can be. Much credit for that must go to the solicitor to Her Majesty's Land Registry, Chris West. Mr. West is shortly to retire and his work on the Bill represents the crowning of a long and distinguished career of public service. I want to put on record the Government's appreciation of that.
	The Law Commission believes that the Bill represents its single largest law reform achievement since its establishment in 1965. It follows, therefore, that the Bill is the most substantial to be considered on Second Reading by a Committee. I certainly felt that the debate in Committee was particularly helpful and constructive, and it showed the effectiveness of the special procedure for such Bills.
	The Bill represents a thorough spring cleaning of the existing legislation, almost all of which dates from 1925 or half a century before. We examined in Committee how necessary simplification and clarification has been achieved and tested the scope for further change. We also spent much time looking into the future.
	Above all, the Bill is radical and forward thinking. It sets out a framework for electronic conveyancing and so opens the way for the benefits that that will bring to the still excessively protracted and painful business of buying and selling property.
	The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) asked a question about which I shall now reassure him. In the first instance, the Land Registry will assess what has happened, but substantial disputes will be decided by the civil or criminal courts.
	A great deal remains to be done to put flesh on the skeleton. In addressing concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), I make it absolutely clear that the Land Registry will seek to strike a balance in devising arrangements for ensuring proper authorisation by clients where conveyancers are to sign electronically on their behalf. I understand the concerns that have been raised on many occasions during the Bill's passage through the House. The arrangements will be the subject of detailed consultation on the basis of practical proposals, and they will be piloted. We shall thus seek to meet the real concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and I believe that we shall do so.
	The helpful and constructive approach taken in the debate highlighted some of the areas where the profession and customers have concerns. Above all, there is a need for a system that can be short yet meet high requirements for reliability and security. The Land Registry is well aware that in planning the next stages it must work with everyone involved in the property market. That will be essential if the ultimate solution is to meet all the needs of the various groups that will benefit. The task will be a considerable challenge to the Land Registry, and the Government will do all we can to help meet it fully.

William Cash: We embarked on this odyssey on Second Reading, and moved on to consideration in Committee. The Minister was right to contend that the procedure was justified for a Bill such as this. The procedure provides us with an opportunity to consider the consequences of proceedings both in Committee and subsequently on Report. We can now wrap up, as it were, the arguments on Third Reading.
	The Bill is monumental. It is not a vast Bill by current standards, but it contains a huge amount of complexity. As I said on Second Reading, during the heady days when I was sitting my conveyancing examinations—too long ago for me to care to remember—the law was complicated and made no better by the fact that the Acts, which have now been axed by the Bill, were deficient. I am sure that that is something that my tutors would have told me, rather than something that would have I observed for myself at the time. However, difficulties and complications arose, and the Bill goes a long way to solving them.
	I pay tribute vicariously to the Minister's advisers and to the Law Commission. The Minister has been ably assisted throughout on the various points that I have had the temerity to raise from time to time. Consideration of the Bill in Committee was conducted in a good spirit. Mr. Charles Harpum's time at the Law Commission has only recently concluded. He worked throughout with the parliamentary counsel who was seconded to the commission; they both deserve tribute.
	I do not want to test your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we shall shortly consider the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill on Report. I hope that the criteria that led the Law Commission to be so effective in relation to this Bill will be borne in mind when we discuss the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, in which a number of unresolved issues remain. I hope that we can arrive at some satisfactory conclusions before our consideration is concluded.
	This Bill lays the foundations for a system of electronic conveyancing that will bring the whole system up to date, providing a faster and more open mechanism for the buying and selling of homes, which will benefit consumers. Indeed, it will affect many millions of people. I notice that the Minister looked up when I mentioned millions of people. That is a lot of people, and we want to be sure that they are all satisfied by the way in which the Bill is enacted.
	The Land Registration Act 1925 had to be disposed of, and the Government are engaging in a sensible pace of reform here. To begin with, the new system will apply only to certain simple registered transactions; other transactions will be drawn into it as time goes by. The system will, in the end, have to be compulsory if the full benefits are to be enjoyed, but as clause 5(4) makes clear, that will be feasible only when electronic conveyancing has by common consent become the most effective way of dealing with transactions.
	There was considerable argument in Committee about the provisions on the length of leases. Our difficulty with clause 91 has been addressed again today, and we have dealt with a significant number of the points made not only here but in the other place. I pay tribute to those in the other place who took the initial phases of the Bill through in such a competent fashion.
	I also want to put on record, however, the fact that the Bill contains a vast number of rule-making powers. I have already expressed concern about the extent to which such powers are becoming the norm. I looked the other day at the array of statutory instruments that have been introduced in any given year. If we aggregate them with European directives, the burdens that over-regulation can impose and the lack of scrutiny given to all such matters, we realise that the appearance that, because the procedures are followed, these matters are given sufficient consideration is not really justified. I do not mean that the consideration is not justified. I mean that it would be an exaggeration to believe that, when statutory instruments and rules are made, they are given the kind of consideration that the Minister was suggesting they are given. I do not believe that that is the case. The way in which we deal with subordinate legislation needs to be much tighter; far too much goes through on the nod.
	On the compulsory registration of leases in excess of seven years, the profession—by which I mean, broadly speaking, the Law Society—generally believes that such compulsory registration is neither necessary nor desirable at this stage. I said in Committee:
	"The Law Society and other bodies have made it clear that they would prefer a system of compulsory registration of leases with terms of 14 years or more. In the event that that were successful, the term of registrable leases could be reduced and the Bill contains the power to do that."—[Official Report, Second Reading Committee, 29 November 2001; c. 12.]
	Concerns have been expressed about whether there will be a vast increase in applications for registration. We discussed that in Committee and it was also considered in the House of Lords. My noble Friend Baroness Buscombe tabled an amendment that would have reduced the length of leases that must be registered from 21 to 14 years, instead of to seven years. She was strongly supported in the background by the Country Landowners Association, among others. As the Member of Parliament for Stone, which is a rural constituency, I can confirm that people are worried about the complexity of the system. I hope that that will be borne in mind.
	It is important to ensure that client confidentiality is sustained, especially between solicitors and their clients; we raised that in Committee and we remain concerned about it.
	Having reached the dying days of the Bill, we have, after some argument, obtained assurances from the Minister about the way in which it should operate in practice. The Government have tabled amendments to the Bill, and by and large it has been improved, both in Committee and in the other place, so as to benefit the public as a whole.
	We support the Bill and we are glad that the Law Commission and the Land Registry played such a distinguished part in helping it to reach the statute book. If and when any glitches occur in practice, I hope that the Government will enthusiastically ensure that they are rectified as soon as possible.

Adrian Sanders: I promise not to take up much of the House's time. I shall not go on until 10 o'clock tonight or drag out the debate. I want merely to note a concern that we raised in Committee. We accept that the Bill is the first step towards achieving a comprehensive Land Registry, but it could have been introduced more quickly. That is a lost opportunity.
	The debates on Second Reading, in Committee and today on Report and Third Reading have been good natured and they have clarified the provisions. We hope that the Bill will succeed in speeding up conveyancing, which is important to any prospective house buyer or vendor. We also hope that it will encourage people who might not otherwise have registered their land to do so. Perhaps one day there will be proposals to speed up the system even further; we shall have to wait and see.
	I thank hon. Members for the way in which business has been conducted. It has been civilised, enjoyable and educational. We have all learned something from the process.

Angela Watkinson: I rise to speak in support of the Bill, although I was not a member of the Committee that scrutinised it. I should have preferred it to include tougher remedies against squatters and the creation of a more effective land register for empty public sector property. As with most Bills, the devil is in the detail.
	I want to draw hon. Members' attention to clause 115, which is entitled "Reduction in unregistered interests with automatic protection", in relation to manorial rights. Essentially, it means that owners of manors will have 10 years from the appointed day to register any interests in the land that they hold as lords of the manor. If registration is contemplated after the 10-year period, it will be too late, and any rights or potential rights in the land will be lost. Any unregistered rights will not be capable of registration, and therefore incapable of enforcement.
	Although it may seem that 10 years is a long enough period for everyone to register, that presupposes that everyone knows of the change in the law. Experience of the Commons Registration Act 1965, under which a period of seven years was allowed for registration of an interest, showed that after 1972 many people had not registered because they did not know that they had to. In fact, discretion was granted to the Commons Commissioners to register after the final date, but there is no discretion contemplated in the Bill, as one of my constituents thinks there should be.
	My constituent, Mr. John Hornchurch, purchased the lordship of the local manor of Hornchurch hall some years ago, and gave it to his family's charitable trust, the Hornchurch hall trust, as a foundation asset. He writes on behalf of the trust: his only personal interest is that he is the trustee whom the other trustees have nominated to use the title "lord of the manor" for life.
	Only a small part of the Bill affects manorial rights, but unfortunately the manorial provisions seem to be adverse and unfair. Under one provision, where a title is registered, it will be possible to have it deregistered, so that future proof of title will depend on title deeds rather than on a register. Mr. Hornchurch believes that that provision is an unfair step. At considerable personal time and expense, he registered the Hornchurch hall trust as the proprietors of the title of lord of the manor of Hornchurch hall. His aim was to obtain benefits of registration, and to make the title and its ownership certain. Clearly, he does not want the trust's position to be arbitrarily weakened.
	Another provision will require unregistered manorial rights to be registered within 10 years of the Bill coming into force, or the rights will be lost. Many rights are uncertain, and become evident only when particular circumstances arise. It seems unfair that the time limit should be imposed, and Mr. Hornchurch feels that it should at least be longer or that there should be provisions for exceptions.
	In the case of the lordship of Hornchurch hall, there is a degree of uncertainty about rights, which Mr. Hornchurch doubts could be removed without considerable further expense. Neither the trust nor the trustees of Hornchurch hall, who provide all the income of the trust, have ever benefited financially from those rights. They make financial gifts to deserving causes. They have wide discretionary powers, and conform to the Charity Commissioners' rules. The trust is entirely philanthropic.
	The Bill will revise and bring up to date much of the law on the way in which the ownership of land is recorded. However, there is an incidental consequence for lords of the manor, which may not have been intended. Land registration works through a register, which now exists in computerised form and records many details of the land. It also includes rights belonging to lords of the manor. The general rule is that, if anyone is registered as the owner of land, that is free of any third-party rights unless a note is made on the register of title that it is subject to such rights. That rule is subject to certain exceptions.
	One of the important exceptions relates to overriding rights, which are rights that affect the land even if they are not noted on the register. As the law stands, if someone owns land that is subject to the rights of the lord of the manor in relation to these matters, the rights of the lord will continue whether or not the matter is mentioned on the register. Under the Bill, if rights are not registered within 10 years from the date of the legislation coming into force, they will cease to bind the land. If the law comes into force in the way suggested, lords of the manor will have to register their rights within 10 years or, for practical purposes, they will lose them. That may be fair if the lord of the manor knows what his or her rights are, but the rights may often be difficult to ascertain. Anyone who knows about their rights will need legal advice on protecting them.
	The Bill also contains other provisions on manors. One is that when the title to the manor itself is registered, as distinct from the land over which the manorial rights can be exercised, it will be possible to have the title deregistered so that from then on proof of title will depend on the title deeds rather than on a register.
	Another factor that will affect owners of roadside verges or similar areas is that after the Bill comes into force it will no longer be possible to lodge a caution at the Land Registry. A lord of the manor may register a caution when he or she is unable to provide evidence of ownership of the verge to the satisfaction of the Land Registry, but still claims ownership. If someone else, such as the owner of an adjoining field, applies to be registered as owner, the Land Register will tell the person who has lodged a caution, and the matter can then be resolved. It will not be possible to lodge such cautions in the future, however.
	It seems that there is a fundamental principle of human rights here. Under the European convention on human rights, now incorporated in United Kingdom law, it is unlawful for citizens to be deprived of their property without due process. The Bill will deprive some citizens of their property simply because they will be unaware of the relevant provision. They will lose their property by default, which cannot be right.

Michael Wills: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly. I echo the thanks others have expressed to all who have been involved with the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) raised the complex and technical issue of manorial rights. I will write to her in detail in response to the concerns raised by her constituent, but I can say now that there is an effective network for the spreading of information about new developments among lords of the manor and their professional advisers.
	There is another side of this coin. Members have complained to me about the many anxieties, and the costs, that can arise from uncertain rights held by lords against them. We must strike a balance, and 10 years seems about right to us; but as I have said, I will write to the hon. Member for Upminster with a detailed response to the complex and technical issue that she raised.
	The task of the Land Registry remains to ensure that the legislation is implemented effectively. I repeat my assurance that the Government will do all we can to help it to rise to the challenge.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Contracting Out

That the draft Contracting Out (Functions in relation to Apsley House) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the remaining motions.
	Ordered,
	That the Non-Domestic Rating (Designation of Rural Areas) (England) Order 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3916), dated 7th December 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th December, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
	That the Non-Domestic Rating Contributions (England) (Amendment) (Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3944), dated 10th December 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th December, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Heppell.]

PETITION
	 — 
	Fireworks

Harry Barnes: I wish to present a petition about the use and abuse of fireworks.
	There are problems in north-east Derbyshire and surrounding areas that affect vulnerable people such as children and the elderly, and also affect animals. The petition is particularly concerned with the impact on animals, but there is much concern in my constituency about wider issues.
	The person who organised the petition expected to receive support only from friends, local vets and animal organisations, but because she had written two letters to the Derbyshire Times she secured 1,866 signatures rather than the 500 or so that she had anticipated. I only wish that I could receive a similar response when the Derbyshire Times contains material from me.
	The petition reads:
	To the House of Commons
	The Petition of Brenda Elvidge and Others
	Declares that the exploding of fireworks to celebrate the demise of Guy Fawkes and other national celebrations such as New Year's Eve now extend by several days and even weeks both before and after the named event and that the fireworks sold for household use (which are also illegally exploded in the streets) are now louder, last longer and have a greater aerial range than previously, thus causing great distress and trauma to a multitude of domestic, wild and farm animals over a prolonged period, resulting in the need for veterinary care and the administration of tranquillisers.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons shall urge the Home Office that the welfare and safety of all animals be considered whenever and wherever fireworks are exploded and to achieve this the House of Commons shall legislate for the period when fireworks are to be sold and to rework The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No 2294) and legislate for the type of firework available to unlicensed individuals and to limit the number of days that these fireworks may be exploded to two named days per national celebration and that the length of each display not exceed 2 hours.
	And the petitioners remain etc.
	The petition is in the name of Brenda Elridge of Nethermoor road, Tupton, Chesterfield and the other petitioners.
	To lie upon the Table.

JAMES ASHLEY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Louise Ellman: The fatal shooting of the sleeping, naked and unarmed James Ashley at around 4.20 am on 15 January 1998, when five of a group of 25 heavily armed police burst into his Hastings flat, demonstrates the failings of Sussex police, the inadequacy of police accountability and a lack of concern for the bereaved.
	A single bullet fired at point blank range by Police Constable Chris Sherwood killed James Ashley, aged 39, as he stumbled out of bed dazed by the light of the torch shone by the raiding police. No arms or drugs were found on the premises, contrary to the information on which authorisation for the raid rested.
	Jimmy Ashley's family are my constituents. I have witnessed their deep grief at their loss but that grief has been followed by anger and incredulity that no one has been brought to account for that needless death. Indeed, in the four years since, little has been revealed in the public sphere, little action has been taken, no one has been brought to account for what happened and it looks as if few lessons have been learned.
	The Ashleys first heard of Jimmy's killing through chance television and teletext viewing. Indeed, at one stage a neighbour who had been listening to the radio approached them. They heard that someone who answered the description of their son had been shot dead by police in an area of Hastings where they knew their son lived. No name was given at that stage but they suspected that something was wrong.
	The family made a series of telephone calls to Sussex police, to coroners and to a range of other individuals and organisations. They were given little information and even less help. They were never officially informed that James Ashley had died and they have never been officially told what happened. It was only after their numerous telephone calls, each striving to access the information that they needed, that they finally established that the dead man was their son and brother.
	To make a tragic situation even worse, a few hours after stumbling on the news of Jimmy's death, the family were to hear on television Chief Constable Paul Whitehouse publicly casting false aspersions on Jimmy's character and insisting that his officers had acted properly.
	The family made a referral to the Police Complaints Authority. It was after that complaint was made that the PCA commissioned reports into what had happened. Barbara Wilding, then assistant chief constable of Kent constabulary, was asked to investigate, and the late Sir John Hoddinott, then the chief constable of Hampshire police, was asked to produce a report into the chief constable's involvement in what happened. Those reports were produced and delivered to the PCA, which, following its normal procedures, issued letters accepting the adequacy of the reports. Yet neither report has ever been published and neither report has ever been exposed to public scrutiny.
	The information in the reports has become known only because there were leaks to the press, specifically to The Guardian, which published a detailed article in 2001. I draw on much of the information in the leaked articles for my comments.
	It is a matter of importance, for the record, that, to the best of my knowledge, nothing in the reports has been denied. The Wilding report found a complete failure of corporate duty by Sussex police. The Hampshire inquiry concluded that three police officers lied about their intelligence in order to persuade Deputy Chief Constable Mark Jordan to authorise the raid. The report found that the raid was
	"authorised on intelligence that was not merely exaggerated, it was determinably false . . . there was a plan to deceive and the evidence concocted."
	That is absolutely damning.
	The report also showed that the guidelines on firearms put together by the Association of Chief Police Officers was breached. Experts on firearms and the law told Kent police that even if the intelligence had been correct, the firearms should not have been authorised.
	The chief constable was castigated. Sir John Hoddinott concluded that Paul Whitehouse, the then chief constable,
	"wilfully failed to tell the truth as he knew it, he did so without reasonable excuse or justification and what he published and said was misleading."
	Sir John found evidence against Deputy Chief Constable Mark Jordan. That included criminal misfeasance and neglect of duty, discreditable conduct and aiding and abetting the chief constable's false statements. There was suggested evidence of collusion between some or all of the chief officers and an arguable case of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
	These statements were contained in those investigation reports. The reports have been kept secret—apart from the leaks made to the press—and have never been available for public scrutiny. After four years, it is reasonable to ask what action has been taken in the face of such gross abuses.
	I note that there are a number of players in the complaints system for the police, which has relevance when we consider that four years have passed. Those players are the Police Complaints Authority, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Sussex police authority and others. In considering the comments that I am about to make, I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider what the role of those key players should have been and where the dereliction of duty lay.
	The CPS refused to prosecute senior officers. In May 2001, the presiding judge halted the Old Bailey trial of the police officer who shot James Ashley dead. At a separate trial in Wolverhampton the same month, the officers who planned the raid were acquitted when the CPS offered no evidence, alleging that the depth of corporate failure was too great to make any individual responsible. Two of the officers involved were promoted with backdated pay increases—an insult to the memory of James Ashley and an absolute affront to his bereaved family.
	Deputy Chief Constable Mark Jordan was suspended on full pay for nearly three years before being retired permanently on ill-health grounds with a full retirement pension at the age of 43. That enabled him to escape disciplinary procedures, yet, on 21 March 1998, during the debate on the Home Affairs Committee inquiry into police complaints in the aftermath of anger about the consequences of the Hillsborough tragedy, the House was promised that the police would no longer be able to evade disciplinary action in that way. That promise was given to the House in March 1998, yet four years afterwards apparently nothing has happened.
	Indeed, the only definitive action has been the resignation of Chief Constable Paul Whitehouse in June 2001. That followed an intervention by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I praise the Home Secretary for his resolute action. His was the first clear action from the Home Office that led to the police having to face up to the consequences of what they had done. In the days that followed the Home Secretary's statement, Paul Whitehouse started to criticise the Home Secretary and queried the legitimacy of his statement, but the result was obtained, and Paul Whitehouse, the chief constable at the time of the shooting, resigned.
	During the past two months disciplinary charges have been filed against three police officers. I presume that the hearings that relate to the disciplinary charges will be internal, not a matter for public scrutiny.
	What should happen now? It is self-evident that the criminal justice system has failed the Ashleys. I call for the immediate publication of the Hoddinott and Wilding reports and for a full public inquiry into the events that led up to the shooting of James Ashley and in its aftermath, including the handling of the complaints.
	Today, by a great coincidence, I have seen a report submitted by Sussex police authority that says that the police inspectorate has carried out an investigation, that 26 recommendations about changes in the way that the Sussex police operate have been made and that many of them have been implemented. However, having read that report, I still find it impossible to ascertain whether all those recommendations have been implemented. Indeed, none of them refer to the need for public scrutiny of what happened on the early morning when James Ashley was shot dead. Nothing in that report tells us how we should overhaul the police complaints system.
	In a letter to me dated 27 June 2001, Sir Alistair Graham, the chairman of the Police Complaints Authority, stated:
	"it is not possible to let you have a copy of Barbara Wilding's and John Hoddinott's reports as section 80 of the Police Act 1996 specifically debars us from doing this except in special circumstances".
	After four years of non-action, I plead those special circumstances. I specifically reject the explanation passed to me by my right hon. Friend the Minister on 8 January 2002, when I was informed that the reports could not be made public because the Sussex police authority would not agree to it. It cannot be acceptable for a police authority that is in the dock itself to veto action of such great public importance. I do not intend to shoot the messenger, but I castigate the ruling of the police authority.
	It is clear from the experience of the shooting of James Ashley and subsequent events that the whole system of police accountability must be overhauled. Scrutiny of that issue and use of police firearms must be improved. The needs of bereaved families must be paramount. No other family must be treated in the uncaring and cavalier fashion suffered by the Ashleys. No police officer should be able to evade disciplinary action by taking early retirement. The promises made to the House in 1998 must be fulfilled.
	I applaud the steps taken by my right hon. Friend in responding to my questions and representations in recent months. He was willing to listen to those representations and I was present when he met the Ashley family. I have been impressed by the way in which he listened carefully to the information on the train of events, which beggars belief. I commend him for initiating two new inquiries about which he informed me in responses to written questions. I should be grateful if he could indicate the scope of those inquiries and confirm that all the reports emanating from them will be published and subject to open scrutiny.
	Public disclosure of James Ashley's killing will bring some comfort to the Ashleys, whose indefatigable and determined efforts have kept the issue in the public eye. I applaud them. It will also serve a wider public interest. In the past decade, the number of times when police officers have been armed has trebled, from 3,722 to 10,928. Some 57 people have been shot, 24 of whom have died. I am concerned in this debate about the shooting of James Ashley, but questions could equally be asked about Harry Stanley, who was shot in September 1999 when the table leg that he was carrying was mistaken for a sawn-off shotgun, or Andrew Kernan, a mentally ill schizophrenic who was shot dead by police in Liverpool on 13 July 2001. Many others have been shot dead without explanation.
	The Ashley case exposes a culture of secrecy and cover-up. The means of investigation have shown themselves to be powerless and ineffective. I made a number of representations to the PCA on behalf of the Ashley family. Although I received sympathetic hearings, I did not feel that my representations were treated with the seriousness and urgency that they deserved. The Police Complaints Authority acted slowly. It may well explain that slowness by reference to the nature of the proceedings in which it is trapped, but I complained more than once that I was not being kept informed about how the inquiries were progressing. When the Police Complaints Authority referred me to other police authorities or to the Crown Prosecution Service, I felt that it was abdicating its responsibility.
	It is extremely important that organisations that exist to deal with matters of public interest recognise the important role played by Members of Parliament as public representatives. Members pursue matters of public interest and matters that relate to their constituents. When a Member of Parliament is determined to get to the truth and to secure a satisfactory answer, he or she will not be deterred by a failure to communicate.
	Major reform of police accountability is urgently required to ensure that there is justice in the many outstanding cases in which it is believed that there has been wrongdoing by the police, whether that is the ultimate wrongdoing—shooting dead innocent people—or any other kind. That is important also if the public consent that is essential for good policing is to be retained. I call on my right hon. Friend to complete the positive and welcome approach that he has demonstrated in his dealings with me in recent months by acceding to the renewed requests that I have made in this debate.

John Denham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) on obtaining this debate and pay tribute to her continuing interest in the case and her diligence on behalf of the Ashley family. I am grateful for her remarks about my involvement in the case.
	I begin by expressing my sympathy to the Ashley family for their loss, as I did when I met them with my hon. Friend last July. The shooting of James Ashley was a tragic mistake. It should not have happened. I sympathise with my hon. Friend in her frustration in trying to understand the circumstances that led to the shooting, why it happened and what has happened since to reduce the chances of such tragic incidents occurring in future. The case has held real frustrations for me as a Minister, particularly as it has not yet been possible to resolve all the understandable concerns of the public and the Ashley family.
	It is four years since the shooting of James Ashley by Sussex police officers took place in Hastings. It has taken far longer than is desirable to deal with all the issues arising from that incident. Some are still unresolved, and it has not been possible for the full circumstances to become public knowledge. In responding to my hon. Friend's concerns, I want to refer briefly to the history of the tragic case, to explain what we are doing to improve the way in which such cases will be handled in future, to set out what has been done to restore confidence in the policing of Sussex and to respond to my hon. Friend's request for the establishment of an inquiry.
	As my hon. Friend has set out, James Ashley was shot by Sussex police officers in Hastings on 15 January 1998. An investigation was immediately established under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority, and the main investigation into the shooting was carried out by Barbara Wilding, then assistant chief constable of Kent police. Another investigation, into the conduct of senior officers, was led by the late Sir John Hoddinott, then chief constable of Hampshire. It was 12 months before those investigations were completed.
	In 1999, four officers were charged with criminal offences. Disciplinary action was taken against the then chief constable, Paul Whitehouse, and other disciplinary charges were brought against the deputy chief constable, who was suspended. Two years later, in April 2001, the officer who fired the fatal shot was acquitted of murder on the direction of the judge.
	The senior officers in charge of the operation faced charges of misfeasance in public office, but they were acquitted when the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence in light of the acquittal of the police constable. Those three officers currently face disciplinary charges.
	After the collapse of the criminal trials, the coroner concluded that he should not hold an inquest, as his findings could not be inconsistent with the outcome of the relevant criminal proceedings. In July 2001, Chief Constable Paul Whitehouse stepped down from operational command of the force; he formally retired in September. A new chief constable has since been appointed. In December 2001, the police authority considered a medical assessment in relation to the deputy chief constable, and resolved that he should be retired on medical grounds.
	That sequence of events has created a possibly unique situation. The criminal proceedings were curtailed, but because there is to be no inquest there has been no alternative opportunity for full public scrutiny of the facts of the case. I had therefore hoped that the investigation reports might be disclosed to the Ashley family, but as my hon. Friend says, those reports are the property of the chief constable of Sussex and of the Sussex police authority, and they have concluded after taking legal advice that those reports may not be disclosed.
	The case shows serious flaws in the current arrangements for investigation of complaints against the police. Investigations of serious incidents are often complex and difficult, but they take too long. The respective responsibilities of the chief constable, the police authority, the Police Complaints Authority and the investigating officer mean that there is no effective accountability for the conduct of such investigations. The present system leads to excessive secrecy and a lack of involvement by complainants and bereaved families. It is also ineffective in terms of providing a means for lessons to be learned from such cases.
	I hope and believe that we are tackling all those problems in the new police complaints system. The Police Reform Bill, which received its Second Reading in another place on 5 February, will establish a much more effective system. That system will be led by the new Independent Police Complaints Commission, which will have a far more powerful roll than the existing PCA.
	Any death or serious injury involving the conduct of police officers, and other serious incidents of possible misconduct, will be referred to the IPCC to determine how the case should be investigated. A case of the gravity of the Ashley case would lead to an independent investigation undertaken by the IPCC itself. In such cases it will no longer be the responsibility of the police to investigate themselves. The IPCC will have clear control of and responsibility for the conduct of such investigations, and it will be clearly accountable to Parliament and the public for its work.
	The Bill will ensure far more openness in the system. There will be a statutory duty on the IPCC and on the police to keep complainants informed throughout the investigation, and to ensure that they receive a full account of the outcome. That will include allowing the investigation report to be disclosed to the complainant, subject to a sensitivity test.
	The IPCC will be able to participate effectively in disciplinary hearings, either presenting the case against an officer or instructing legal representatives to do so. In serious cases, that will ensure that the evidence is presented robustly. The IPCC will also have a statutory responsibility to ensure that the lessons to be learned from the investigation of complaints are disseminated.
	The new complaints system will be more independent, more open and transparent, and more effective in ensuring that cases are dealt with speedily. All those improvements are essential to achieve public confidence in the handling of complaints against the police.
	Although those future changes do not directly address my hon. Friend's frustration and dissatisfaction with her experience in the Ashley case, I hope that I have been able to reassure her that we are working to reflect the lessons of that case and other unsatisfactory cases in drawing up proposals for the IPCC. By emphasising disclosure, the involvement of complainants and the independence of the process, I hope to construct a system that will not give rise to the same problems as have arisen in the past.
	The Police Reform Bill also makes changes to the powers to remove senior officers in appropriate cases. The changes will allow action to be taken much more effectively when the interests of efficiency and effectiveness make it necessary for a chief officer to step down. The circumstances in which such powers might be used will of course be rare, but we need to ensure that effective powers are available where necessary, including powers to require the suspension of a chief officer where that is necessary in the interests of maintaining public confidence.
	My hon. Friend will understand that it would not be right for me to comment on the merits of individual cases. In the case of the former deputy chief constable of Sussex, I should put it on record that I have not seen the medical assessment that led the police authority to its decision, and nor would it be right for me to do so. It is worth saying, however, that our general approach to such issues was set out in paragraph 6.46 of the White Paper on police reform. The Government believe that it is unacceptable for sickness or medical retirement to be used as a means of avoiding discipline.
	Regulations already allow for disciplinary hearings to go ahead in the absence of the accused. That was the change promised four years ago. However, I have to admit that the power is not used very frequently. So we will provide strong support from the centre for firm management action to proceed with hearings in all but the most exceptional cases.
	The problem is not so much with the way the law is constructed, but with the way it is applied in practice. Guidance contains a presumption that completion of disciplinary proceedings should not generally be a reason to delay medical retirement. We intend to change that and will be bringing forward amendments to the central guidance next month. Where medical retirement is at issue, the police authority should consider whether to exercise its discretion not to retire the officer where public interest in completing the proceedings in a misconduct case outweighs the medical condition.
	Understandably, the shooting of James Ashley and the subsequent events were damaging to public confidence in the policing of Sussex. The public rightly want reassurance that everything possible is being done to ensure effective policing in the area. That is one reason why I asked the Sussex police authority under section 43 of the Police Act 1996 to produce a formal report. I know that my hon. Friend thinks it a matter of coincidence, but I received that report within the past few days. Indeed, I believe that I read it on Thursday. Despite having received it close to this Adjournment debate, it seemed much better to put it in the public domain before the debate rather than to publish it a few days afterwards. So it has been placed in the House of Commons Library and is in the public domain.
	The report sets out the detailed programme of action taken in the force to ensure that its firearms capability meets national standards. Last summer, the firearms capability of the force was subject to detailed scrutiny by a specialist team from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. The inspectorate produced a report that made 26 recommendations. All have been accepted and taken forward, and the force is now in compliance with national policy on the operational use of firearms.
	The force was subject to a wider inspection of its performance, beginning in September 2000 and continuing through much of 2001. Her Majesty's inspector has completed his report on the performance of the force, which will be published next month. I anticipate that the report will identify candidly the damage to the operational effectiveness of the force which followed the shooting of James Ashley and the consequent intensive investigations. I can add that Her Majesty's inspector will conclude that the recovery process is now well under way. The report will state:
	"Much remains to be done, but clear progress is discernable, and Sussex Police emerges today as a force that is increasingly both effective and efficient—a more secure conclusion that might have been reached only two years ago."
	On the basis of that independent, professional assessment, Sussex police, under its new leadership, is well on the road to recovery. I hope that, despite the fact that, for reasons that are understood, the police authority report has on legal advice omitted certain material that might have been prejudicial to disciplinary hearings, its report, together with the inspector's report, will provide public reassurance, and that the people of Sussex can have confidence in their police service.
	Following the investigation report arising from the case, the Association of Chief Police Officers undertook a major revision of the national manual on police operational use of firearms. As my hon. Friend has recognised, I wanted to go further to ensure an independent examination of a number of incidents. That is why I asked the Police Complaints Authority to produce a special report on the lessons to be learned from all recent firearms incidents.
	The review will consider the lessons to be learned from investigations supervised by the PCA since January 1998. The PCA will examine all incidents in which shootings by the police resulted in death or injury, with particular regard to the planning, control and conduct of those operations; the way in which the concerns of the bereaved families were addressed, and how they were kept informed of the progress of the investigations—a matter to which my hon. Friend rightly drew attention; and the training and skills needs of police officers involved in such operations, particularly at command level.
	The Sussex report to which I referred earlier has already been published. The PCA is due to report in May; its report will be laid before the House and published. As my hon. Friend will recognise from the time scale, it will cover the two further incidents involving two other individuals to which she referred. My other concern is to provide reassurance to members of the Ashley family about why the shooting occurred; I appreciate that so far it has not been possible to meet all their concerns. I shall now set out the position that we have reached and some of the dilemmas.
	Disciplinary proceedings are still pending, which makes it impossible for me to comment at this stage on the details of the case. Because the incident occurred such a long time ago, those proceedings will be conducted under the old police discipline regulations, under which the Secretary of State is the appellate authority. I should not express any view on matters which are still to be considered through the disciplinary process. I understand too that the Ashley family are bringing civil proceedings against the force. We are caught in a dilemma; I recognise that it will not be possible fully to satisfy the concerns of the Ashley family without providing them with further information, but disclosure of such information at this stage might make it impossible to proceed with disciplinary action. Against that, I recognise that it will be a considerable time before the disciplinary process is completed.
	Similar considerations apply to the question of establishing an inquiry. I would be reluctant to take any action which might make it impossible to conclude the disciplinary process. I must also consider whether an inquiry would help to promote effective policing in Sussex and the restoration of public confidence. A great deal has been, and is being, done to tackle the problems in Sussex; to improve the current system for investigating police complaints; and to ensure that police use of firearms complies with the highest professional standards. I may therefore have reason to doubt whether an inquiry would add anything to that process. But my mind is not closed and, in conclusion, I will reflect carefully on what my hon. Friend has said.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Six o'clock.